arXiv:1109.6265v2 [astro-ph.CO] 30 Oct 2011 o.Nt .Ato.Soc. Astron. R. Not. Mon. cetd21 etme 7 eevd21 etme 3 no in 13; September 2011 Received 27. September 2011 Accepted .Beifiori A. and Mass Hole Properties Black Galaxy Supermassive between Correlations the On h mass The INTRODUCTION 1 fglxe,sc stebleluminosity, bulge component the spheroidal the as of such properties galaxies, the of to tied closely 99 omny&Rcsoe19;Mroi&Hunt & Marconi ⋆ 1995; Richstone & Kormendy 1989; 2 1 4 3 nttt fCsooyadGaiain ensSim Buil Sciama Dennis Gravitation, and Cosmology of Institute Gie Physik, f¨ur Extraterrestrische Max-Planck-Institut iatmnod srnma nvri` iPdv,vicolo Padova, Universit`a di Ph Astronomia, Engineering di Physics, Dipartimento of Department University, Queen’s E-mail:beifi[email protected] M • fsprasv lc oe SBs is (SMBHs) holes black supermassive of 1 , 2 ⋆ .Courteau S. , 000 –2(01 rne oebr21 M L (MN 2011 November 1 Printed (2011) 1–32 , euealresml fuprlmt n cuaeetmtso super Sloa of dis from velocity estimates extracted galaxy parameters accurate i host photometric and of and limits libraries velocities with tional upper coupled of masses sample (SMBHs) holes large a use We ABSTRACT tr.W etwehrtems ftebakhole, black the of mass the whether test We eters. ihrlclo lblglx rpris eepoecreain be correlations explore We properties. galaxy global or local either a eoiydispersion velocity lar S´ersic index ftegalaxy the of yaia n ffciemasses effective and dynamical il ihe rns ed o n ieecsi the in differences find not do We trends. tighter yield M nardglxe.The galaxies. unbarred ieetsoeta htivligcasclble.The bulges. classical involving that than slope different the ieyo h otglx opooy al-yeglxe olwatigh a follow galaxies If early-type galaxies. morphology: late-type galaxy host the on tively aaee.Cnrr ovrospbihdrprs efidarath a find we ad reports, an published as various radius between effective to bulge Contrary the parameter. adding despite and luminosity, bulge hntedr atr ehv etdtene o hr parame third a for need the tested have We matter. dark the than the akdipoeetoe the over improvement marked ocnrto.Tecreain between correlations The concentration. htmty—glxe:knmtc n yais—glxe:statistic galaxies: — dynamics and kinematics galaxies: — galax date. photometry of to known compendium words: hosts a Key SMBH provide We the of radius. most effective for the properties to due tilt small ocnr httefnaetlpaeo h MHi anydie by driven mainly is SMBH the of p plane galaxy fundamental and the bulge that with confirm correlations to linear various through relations, bn mgst sals orltosbtenteSB n otg host and SMBH the between correlations establish to images -band • M − M • • σ − e − 3 M σ .M Corsini M. E. , eainadfidta orltoswt te aayprmtr do parameters galaxy other with correlations that find and relation L V • e bulge c eain ept h ug aspoigt eabte rx of proxy better a be to proving mass bulge the despite relation, and n eainte ugssthat suggests then relation L ug eneetv ufc brightness surface effective mean bulge , lc oe hsc aais udmna aaees—galaxies: — parameters fundamental galaxies: — physics holes black i, (Dressler gal n snahtae -54 acig Germany Garching, D-85748 ssenbachstraße, aayselrmass stellar galaxy , (or V elOsraoi ,I312Pdv,Italy Padova, I-35122 3, dell’Osservatorio c sc n srnm,Knso,O,KL36 Canada 3N6, K7L ON, Kingston, Astronomy, and ysics σ h ig unb od otmuh O F,Uie Kingdom United 3FX, PO1 Portsmouth, Road, Burnaby ding, µ e sapoyfrtedr atrhl as h ag cte of scatter large the mass, halo matter dark the for proxy a is M iia om21 aur 5 January 2011 form riginal , e , • i bulge bn ug luminosity bulge -band − Fraeee l 06,tegaiainlbnigenergy galaxy binding the gravitational of mass the bulge virial 2006), 2002; the the al. central S´ersic index et 2007), the (Ferrarese of the al. 2001), Driver et 2004), & al. Tremaine mass (Graham et Rix (Graham H¨aring & the concentration 1998; light 2000; G09), al. et 2005; (Magorrian al. Ford et Gebhardt & Ferrarese 2000; h tla eoiydispersion, G09), velocity hereafter stellar 2009, G¨ultekinet al. the 2007; Graham 2003; σ M 4 i e ugsigthat suggesting ) n .Zhu Y. and , M • eaino suoble sas ore n a a has and coarser also is pseudo-bulges of relation − dyn σ e , gal eain hs cln eain eedsensi- depend relations scaling These relation. M M M and ⋆, A • T gal • E n aaylmnst rms r o a not are mass or luminosity galaxy and smr ope otebroi rather baryonic the to coupled more is tl l v2.2) file style X aiu iclrvelocity circular maximum , M e , M gal 3 L • evrf h ihns fthe of tightness the verify We . M i, sntrltdt h ug light bulge the to related not is bulge M • M sfnaetlydie by driven fundamentally is , • h µ − • ug mass bulge , e − , σ bulge M e σ eaino ardand barred of relation bulge iia k Survey Sky Digital n i e nthe in ter , Fraee&Merritt & (Ferrarese tween rpo correlation poor er i bn luminosity -band snta ih as tight as not is e eainthan relation ter rmtr,only arameters, iinlfitting ditional s esos rota- persions, asv black massive M lx param- alaxy M structural y bulge M • V σ c e n stel- and M • galaxy , bulge , scaling iha with • than not 2 A. Beifiori et al.

(Aller & Richstone 2007), the kinetic energy of random Space Telescope (HST ) archival spectra. That sample in- motions of the bulge (Feoli & Mancini 2009), and the stel- cludes nuclear spectra for 105 nearby galaxies with D < 100 lar light and mass deficit associated to the core ellipticals Mpc obtained with the Space Telescope Imaging Spectro- (Lauer et al. 2007; Kormendy & Bender 2009). Most of graph (STIS) equipped with the G750M grating. The spec- these relations are inter-compared in Novak et al. (2006) tra cover the region of the Hα line and [Nii] λλ6548, 6583 and in G09. Given the M• − σ relation and the correlation and [Sii] λλ6716, 6731 doublets. The nebular-line widths between σ and the circular velocity, Vc, Ferrarese (2002) were modelled in terms of gas motion in a thin disc of un- and Pizzella et al. (2005) suggested a link between M• and known orientation but known spatial extent following the Vc (or equivalently, with the mass of the dark matter halo). method of Sarzi et al. (2002). B09 adopted two different in- However, Courteau et al. (2007) and Ho (2007) pointed clinations for the gaseous disc with a nearly face-on disc ◦ out that the Vc−σ relation actually depends on galaxy (i = 33 ) hosting a larger M• and a nearly edge-on disc ◦ morphology (or equivalently, on its light concentration) (81 ) harbouring a smaller M•. The two inclinations cor- thus precluding a simple connection between M• and Vc. respond to the 68% upper and lower confidence limits for Kormendy & Bender (2011) studied a sample of bulgeless randomly oriented discs. We augmented the B09 sample galaxies and concluded that there is almost no correlation with the M• upper limits of NGC 2892 and NGC 5921. The between the SMBH and dark matter halo, unless the galaxy STIS/G750M spectra for these galaxies were retrieved from also contains a bulge. the HST archive and we have calculated their M• upper Several authors have noted that the residuals of the limits from the nebular line widths following the prescrip- M• − σ and M• − Lbulge relations correlate with the galaxy tion of B09. We include in Sample A the set of 105 galaxies effective radius (e.g., Marconi & Hunt 2003). Hopkins et al. from B09 minus 18 galaxies in common with G09 (15 of (2007a,b) suggested the possibility of a linear combina- them with a secure M• and 3 with a M• upper limit derived tion between different galaxy properties to reduce the scat- from the dynamical modelling of resolved kinematics). We ter of the M• scaling laws, heralding the idea of a fun- are left with 87 M• upper limits from B09 based on nebular- damental plane of SMBHs (BHFP). Many SMBH scaling line widths. We also include two newly determined M• upper relations could thus be seen as projections of the BHFP limits and the five upper limits derived from the dynamical (Aller & Richstone 2007; Barway & Kembhavi 2007). A cor- modelling of resolved kinematics by G09. The resulting 94 relation of M• with more than one galaxy parameter would galaxies constitute our Sample A. suggest a SMBH growth sensitive to the overall structure of G09 collected M• data published up to November 2008 the host galaxy. based on the resolved kinematics of ionised gas, stars, and The local characterisation and cosmic evolution of water maser for total sample of 49 galaxies with a secure the M• scaling relations have already been examined M• estimate and 18 galaxies with a M• upper limit. Our through theoretical models for the coevolution of galax- Sample B is limited to the 49 definite values of M•. The ies and SMBHs (Granato et al. 2004; Vittorini et al. 2005; five upper limits derived from the dynamical modelling of Hopkins et al. 2006; Monaco et al. 2007). These studies have resolved kinematics already belong to Sample A. The re- revealed that the observed scaling relations could be re- maining 13 upper limits by G09 are taken from the nebular produced in models of SMBH growth with strong feedback line width measurements by Sarzi et al. (2002). They were from the active galactic nucleus (AGN, Silk & Rees 1998; also measured by B09 and are therefore already included in Cox et al. 2006; Robertson et al. 2006a,b; Di Matteo et al. Sample A. 2005). In particular, these models predict the existence of All the data relative to Samples A and B are listed in the BHFP (Hopkins et al. 2007a,b, 2009). However, while Table 1 and 2, respectively. The upper limits by B09 were −1 −1 the observed relations can be reproduced by the models, rescaled assuming H0 = 70 km s Mpc , Ωm = 0.3, and these still depend on the adopted slope, zero point, and scat- ΩΛ = 0.7 to conform with G09. ter (Somerville 2009) which remain ill-constrained. Figure 1 shows the upper limits and the accurate de- In this work, we make use of a large sample of galaxies terminations of M• for the 18 galaxies in common between with available M• estimates to improve our understanding the B09 and G09 samples. The M• estimates by B09 and of the known scaling laws over a wide range of M•, mor- G09 are consistent within 1σ of each other; no systematic phological type and nuclear activity, as well as to test for offset is detected. Thus, nebular line width measurements by possible correlations of M• with different combinations of B09 (included in Sample A) trace well the nuclear gravita- spheroid and galaxy parameters. tional potential dominated by the central SMBH, allowing This paper is organised as follows. The sample of SMBH a reliable estimate of M• (as those in Sample B). There- hosts is described in §2. Their photometric, kinematic, and fore, we shall use the M• upper limits from Sample A to dynamical properties are presented in §3, while the correla- study the correlations of M• versus various galaxy parame- ◦ tions between M• and the bulge and galaxy properties are ters. We adopt for our tests the case of i = 33 which max- shown in §4. We discuss our results and conclude in §5. imises the upper limit on M•. B09 already compared their M• − σe relation with those of Ferrarese & Ford (2005) and Lauer et al. (2007) to show that their upper limits on M• 2 SAMPLE DESCRIPTION (included in Sample A) are a valuable proxy for the more secure determinations of M• (comprised in Sample B). A The M• values were retrieved from two different samples: Kolmogorov-Smirnov test on the distributions of M• and σ the compilation of M• upper limits by Beifiori et al. (2009, indicates that Samples A and B could be drawn from the hereafter B09) and the compilation of secure M• by G09. same parent distribution to better than the 80% confidence The M• estimates of B09 were obtained from Hubble level. For this reason, we merged Samples A and B into a SMBH mass and galaxy properties 3

3.1 Galaxy Photometric Parameters We retrieved g and i-band images from the seventh data release (DR7, Abazajian et al. 2009) of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS, York et al. 2000) for as many Sample A and B galaxies as possible. The total SDSS sample includes 90 galaxies, 62 from Sample A and 28 from Sample B, from which to derive structural parameters. The SDSS images are already bias subtracted, flat- fielded and cleaned from bright stars; however, we performed our own sky subtraction since the SDSS pipeline sky levels may be flawed for extended galaxies (Bernardi et al. 2007; Lauer et al. 2007). This issue has been addressed in the SDSS-III Data Release 8 (Aihara et al. 2011; Blanton et al. 2011). For our purposes, we estimated the sky level of each galaxy image by isolating five regions away from the galaxy, free of any contaminant, and calculating the mode of the sky intensities per pixel within each sky region. The average and standard deviation of the five sky values was then com- puted. The difference between our measured sky values and those provided by SDSS can be as large as 4%. The SDSS sky level is always biased high, likely due to the inclusion of bright, extended sources while our interactive technique ensures a contaminant-free selection of the sky fields. We Figure 1. Comparison between the M• upper limits by B09 and M find that the typical surface brightness error in the g and accurate • measurements (symbols) and upper limits (leftward −2 −2 arrows) by G09 and based on the resolved kinematics of gas (filled i bands is 0.1 mag arcsec at µg ≃ 26 mag arcsec and −2 circles), stars (open circles), and water masers (open square). The µi ≃ 25 mag arcsec , respectively (see McDonald et al. upper and lower edges of the dotted lines correspond to B09’s M• 2011, for more details). The large angular extent of NGC 224 values estimated assuming an inclination of i = 33◦ and 81◦ for and NGC 4594 relative to the field of view thwarted their the unresolved Keplerian disc, respectively. proper sky subtraction; these two galaxies were therefore excluded from our SDSS sample. NGC 221 was also dis- carded due to improper positioning of the image on the de- joint A+B data set. The combination of Samples A and B tector. The remaining images were flux-calibrated based on the SDSS photometric zero-point, corrected for Galactic ex- yields a total sample of 143 M• determinations. The union tinction (Schlegel et al. 1998) as well as for internal extinc- of those two samples proves most valuable for the proper tion and K-correction following Shao et al. (2007). statistical assessment of scaling relations with M•. The galaxy surface brightness profiles were ex- tracted using the isophotal fitting methods outlined in Courteau et al. (1996) and McDonald et al. (2011). These make use of the astronomical data reduction package 3 GALAXY PROPERTIES XVISTA1. The azimuthally-averaged surface brightness profiles, projected onto the major axis of each galaxy, are The aim of this study is to determine the strength of the shown in Figure 2 for four sample galaxies. These are the correlations, if any, between M• and the properties of their elliptical galaxy NGC 5127, two high- (NGC 4036) and low- host galaxies. For the latter, we have compiled as large a col- (NGC 4477) inclination lenticular galaxies, and the spiral lection as possible of homogeneous measurements of photo- galaxy NGC 3675 which boasts a remarkably high dust con- metric parameters (effective radius, effective surface bright- tent. ness, S´ersic index, and luminosity of the bulge, effective ra- The g and i-band total magnitude of each galaxy is then dius, effective surface brightness, concentration, and total determined by summing the flux at each isophote and ex- luminosity of the galaxy), kinematic properties (stellar ve- trapolating the light profile to infinity. The g − i colour of locity dispersion and circular velocity), and masses (bulge each galaxy was calculated from the difference of the fully mass, galaxy stellar mass, virial and dynamical mass of the corrected g and i-band magnitudes. The remaining struc- galaxy). tural parameters were measured from the i-band light pro- The sample demographics are as follows: 29% of the files since, of all the SDSS band passes, the i-band suffers host galaxies are ellipticals, 27% lenticulars, and 44% are least dust extinction. We extracted the isophotal radius, spirals (de Vaucouleurs et al. 1991, hereafter RC3). Regard- r24.5, corresponding to the surface brightness of 24.5 mag ing nuclear activity, 23% of the sample galaxies are Low- arcsec−2, the half-light (or effective) radius of the galaxy, Ionisation Nuclear Emission-line Regions (LINERs), 11% re,gal, the effective surface brightness of the galaxy, µe,gal, host Hii nuclei, 25% are Seyferts, and 8% are classified as and the galaxy concentration C28 = 5 log(r80/r20), where transition objects according to Ho et al. (1997). The remain- r20 and r80 are the radii which enclose 20% and 80% of ing 33% do not show central emission. We describe in the sub-sections below the extraction of all the galaxy structural parameters. 1 See http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/holtz/xvista/index.html. 4 A. Beifiori et al.

Figure 2. Typical g (red points) and i-band (blue points) surface brightness profiles extracted along the major axis for a few sample galaxies. the total luminosity, respectively. These i-band structural ically the entire elliptical galaxy or the bulge component for parameters are listed in Table 3. The g-band magnitude a disc galaxy) is modelled using a S´ersic function (S´ersic is also listed. Based on simulated models of spiral galaxies 1968; see also Graham & Driver 2005) (MacArthur et al. 2003), the typical error per galaxy struc- 1/n −bn{(r/re) −1} tural parameter is roughly 10-20%. Ib(r)= Ie10 , (1)

where re is the effective radius, Ie is the surface brightness at 3.2 Photometric Parameters of Bulges and Discs re , and n is a shape parameter that describes the curvature of the radial profile. With n = 1 or n = 4, the S´ersic function The structural parameters for elliptical galaxies, modelled reduces to the exponential or de Vaucouleurs function, re- typically as a single spheroid, and for spiral galaxies, mod- spectively. The coefficient bn = 0.868 n − 0.142 (Caon et al. elled as the sum of a spheroid and a disc, were derived by ap- 1993) is a normalisation term. The spheroid model ellipti- plying the two-dimensional photometric decomposition al- cal isophotes have constant position angle PAb and constant gorithm GASP2D (M´endez-Abreu et al. 2008) to the SDSS axial ratio qb. i−band images. The surface brightness distribution of the disc compo- The surface brightness of the spheroid component (typ- nent is assumed to follow an exponential law (Freeman 1970) SMBH mass and galaxy properties 5

−r/h Id(r)= I0 e , (2) due to the presence of strong dust lanes and/or spiral arms). We successfully performed photometric decompositions, as where h and I are the scale length and central surface 0 judged by a global χ2 figure-of-merit, for the 57 galaxies ( brightness of the disc, respectively. The disc model elliptical 38 from Sample A, 19 from Sample B) listed in Table 4. isophotes have constant position angle PA and constant d The latter includes the resulting bulge and disc structural axial ratio q . The fitting algorithm GASP2D relies on a d parameters. Some examples illustrating the various fitting χ2 minimisation of the intensities in counts, for which we strategies are shown in Figure 3. These are the same galax- must adopt initial trial parameters that are as close as pos- ies, whose azimuthally-averaged surface brightness profiles sible to their final values. The latter were estimated from are shown in Figure 2. For all of them, the ellipse-averaged our ellipse-averaged light profiles from which basic fits to radial profiles of surface brightness, ellipticity, and position the bulge and disc were applied to estimate structural pa- angle of the model image are consistent with those measured rameters (see M´endez-Abreu et al. 2008, for details). The χ2 on the galaxy image. The differences between model and minimisation is based on the robust Levenberg-Marquardt data found in the ellipticity and position angle of NGC 4477 method by Mor´eet al. (1980). The actual computation has and in the ellipticity of NGC 3675 are due to the presence been done using the MPFIT algorithm (Markwardt 2009) of a weak bar and strong dust lanes, respectively. These under the IDL2 environment. features are clearly seen in the galaxies’ residual images. The GASP2D software yields structural parameters for Nevertheless, the surface brightness residuals ∆µi are re- the bulge (Ie, re, n, PAb, and qb) and disc (I0, h, PAd, −2 markably small; |∆µi| < 0.2 mag arcsec for all the galax- and q ) and the position of the galaxy centre (x ,y ). In d 0 0 ies shown in Figure 3, except for some portions of the dust GASP2D, each image pixel intensity is weighted according lanes of NGC 3675 where the residuals increase to ∼ 0.4 to the variance of its total observed photon counts due to the mag arcsec−2. Although part of the NGC 3675 disc is miss- contribution of both galaxy and sky, and accounting for pho- ing, this does not affect the fit result. GASP2D performs a ton and detector read-out noise. Seeing effects were taken reliable fit as soon as the observed galaxy can be modelled into account by convolving the model image with a circular by the sum of two axisymmetric components and the field of Moffat point spread function (Moffat 1969, hereafter PSF) view covers at least half of the galaxy (M´endez-Abreu 2008). with shape parameters measured from the stars in the galaxy The GASP2D formal errors obtained from the χ2 min- image. Only the image pixels with an intensity larger than imisation method are not representative of the real errors in 1.5 times the sky standard deviation were included in the the structural parameters (M´endez-Abreu et al. 2008). In- fit. Foreground stars were masked and excluded from the fit. stead, the estimated errors given in Table 4 were obtained The initial guesses were adopted to initialise the non-linear through a series of Monte Carlo simulations. To this end, least-squares fit to galaxy image, where the parameters were we generated a set of 400 images of elliptical galaxies with all allowed to vary. A model of the galaxy surface brightness a S´ersic spheroid and 400 images of disc galaxies with a distribution was built using the fitted parameters. It was S´ersic bulge and an exponential disc; each with a different convolved with the adopted circular two-dimensional Mof- PA and ellipticity. The range of tested parameters for the fat PSF and subtracted from the observed image to obtain simulated images was taken from the photometric analy- a residual image. In order to confirm the minimum in the sis of nearby elliptical galaxies by Kormendy et al. (2009) χ2-space found in this first pass, two more iterations were and face-on disc galaxies by Gadotti (2009) (but assuming a performed. In these iterations, all the pixels and/or regions wider range of axial ratios than the latter). Our tests include of the residual image with values greater or less than a fixed treatment for resolution effects (galaxy distance, pixel scale, threshold, controlled by the user, were rejected. Those re- and seeing), colour effects (accounting for V and i bands), gions were masked out and the fit was repeated assuming, as inclination, and more. The two-dimensional parametric de- initial trials for the free parameters, the values obtained in composition was applied to analyse the images of the artifi- the previous iteration. These masks are useful when galaxies cial galaxies as if they were real. The artificial and observed have spiral arms and dust lanes, which can affect the fitted galaxies were divided in bins of 1 mag. The relative errors parameters. We found that our algorithm converges after on the fitted parameters of the artificial galaxies were esti- three iterations. mated by comparing the input and output values and were The model decompositions for few elliptical galax- assumed to be normally distributed. In each magnitude bin, ies (NGC 4473, NGC 4636, NGC 4649) were signifi- the mean and standard deviation of relative errors of arti- cantly improved by including a disc component, as found ficial galaxies were adopted as the systematic and typical in a few other elliptical galaxies (Kormendy et al. 2009; error on the relevant parameter for the observed galaxies. McDonald et al. 2009). For the other ellipticals, the values of Overall, we find that GASP2D recovers the galaxy struc- r obtained either directly (empirically) from the light pro- e tural parameters with an uncertainty ranging from 1%, to file (in §3.1) or by using a S´ersic fitting function (from the 10%, and to 20% for brighter (6.5 6 m < 7.5), intermedi- two-dimensional photometric decomposition) agree within tot,i ate (10.5 6 mtot,i < 11.5), and fainter (12.5 6 mtot,i < 13.5) their respective errors. sample galaxies, respectively. We eliminated 33 galaxies from our sample because of The inclination of disc galaxies was calculated from the poor decompositions due to either a strong central bar, a fitted disc axial ratio in the i-band as Freeman II profile (Freeman 1970), or just the overall inad- 2 equacy of our single or double-component modelling (e.g., 2 1 − qd sin i = 2 , (3) 1 − q0

2 Interactive Data Language is distributed by ITT Visual Infor- where q0 is the intrinsic disc axial ratio. We obtain the latter mation Solutions. It is available from http://www.ittvis.com/. from Paturel et al. (1997): 6 A. Beifiori et al.

Figure 3. Two-dimensional photometric decomposition of the sample galaxies shown in Figure 2 illustrating the various fitting strategies adopted with GASP2D. For each galaxy, we show in the upper panels the SDSS i-band image (left), the best-fit image (middle), and the residual (i.e., observed-model) image (right). The lower panels show the ellipse-averaged radial profiles of the surface brightness (left), ellipticity (middle), and position angle (right) measured in the SDSS (dots) and model image (green continuous line). The difference between the ellipse-averaged radial profiles from the observed and model images are also shown. The dashed blue and dotted red lines represent the intrinsic surface brightness radial profiles of the bulge and disc, respectively. No disc contribution is assumed for the elliptical galaxy NGC 5127.

log q0 = −0.43 − 0.053 T, (4) was obtained from our own decomposition of the SDSS im- ages (Tables 3 and 4). The maximum difference between where T is the galaxy Hubble type from RC3. our and literature values of re,bulge is about 20%, though The fitted i-band disc axial ratios agree well with the the comparison often involves different band passes which isophotal axial ratios at a surface brightness level µB = 25 −2 broadens the discrepancy. mag arcsec reported in the RC3. Our disc axial ratios are The aperture correction was also applied to the σ mea- on average 6% lower than RC3 with a standard deviation sured for NGC 2892 and NGC 5921 by Ho et al. (2009) and of 7%. We adopted the RC3 axial ratios for the lenticular Wegner et al. (2003), respectively. and spiral galaxies whose GASP2D solution for the disc was For Sample B galaxies, we adopted the values of σe too uncertain; this amounts to 28 galaxies in Sample A and given by G09. These were derived as the luminosity-weighted another 8 in Sample B. mean of the stellar velocity dispersion within re,bulge.

3.3 Stellar Velocity Dispersion 3.4 Circular Velocity The measured stellar velocity dispersions, σ, for galaxies in Sample A were taken from the same sources as B09. We The values for the galaxy circular velocity, Vc, for both ellip- applied the aperture correction of Jørgensen et al. (1995) to tical and disc galaxies were collected from different sources. transform the σ into the equivalent of an effective stellar dis- We retrieved Vc from the compilation of Ho (2007) for persions, σe, measured within a circular aperture of radius 40 disc galaxies (31 from Sample A, 9 from Sample B). These re,bulge. The effective radii were also taken from the same were derived from the Hi line widths available in the Hy- sources as B09, except for the 35 galaxies for which re,bulge perLeda catalogue (Paturel et al. 2003). The W20 and W50 SMBH mass and galaxy properties 7 line widths are measured at 20% and the 50% of the total morphological type. This does not affect our analysis since Hi line profile flux. For galaxies missing in Ho (2007), line we could measure re,bulge (and therefore Mbulge) for only a widths were found in HyperLeda for an additional 27 galax- few Sb–Sbc galaxies. Moreover, the ratio B/T > 0.1 except ies (22 from the Sample A, 5 from Sample B). Given multiple for three galaxies. sources in HyperLeda, we favoured the larger survey source Ferrarese et al. (2006) suggested a connection between for each galaxy in order maximise the homogeneity of the M• and the mass of early-type galaxies calculated as data base3. All line widths were already corrected for instru- M = α r σ2/G with α = 5.0 ± 0.1. (8) mental resolution. We further applied a correction for cosmo- e,gal e,gal e logical stretching and broadening by gas turbulence follow- Note that such a mass estimate is indicative of the galaxy ing Bottinelli et al. (1983) and Verheijen & Sancisi (2001). mass within re,gal and is thus an incomplete representation Finally, the corrected line widths W20,corr and W50,corr were of the total galaxy mass. We calculated Me,gal for the ellip- deprojected using the prescription of Paturel et al. (1997) tical and lenticular galaxies in our sample by adopting re,gal

1.187 log W20,corr −0.543 calculated from the azimuthally-averaged light profiles (Ta- V20 = 0.5(10 )/ sin i, (5) ble 3). For elliptical galaxies, Mbulge = Me,gal. The virial esti- 1.071 log W50,corr −0.210 V50 = 0.5(10 )/ sin i, (6) mator by Cappellari et al. (2006) captures the entire dynam- where the inclination, i, is listed in Table 1 and 2. We take ical mass so long as total mass traces light (Thomas et al. 2011). Wolf et al. (2010) found a different coefficient (α = 4) the final circular velocity as the average of V20 and V50, for their derivation of a mass estimator for stellar systems Vc =(V20 + V50)/2. (7) supported by velocity dispersion. The latter is a good esti- mate of the total dynamical mass inside a radius which is Following Ho (2007), we adopted a 5% error on V for the c just larger than the effective radius (Thomas et al. 2011). maximum velocity listed in Hyperleda. The appropriate value of α is actually a function of the For 14 early-type galaxies (7 in Sample A, 7 in Sample S´ersic shape index n (Trujillo et al. 2004; Cappellari et al. B), we adopted the value of V derived from dynamical mod- c 2006). However the exact application of the α(n) relation, elling (IC 1459, Samurovi´c& Danziger 2005; NGC 1052, which results in a zero-point offset for M , does not affect Binney et al. 1990; NGC 3115, Bender et al. 1994; e,gal our conclusions. We thus make use of the Cappellari et al. NGC 3608, Coccato et al. 2009; NGC 4314 Quillen et al. (2006) mass estimator. Error estimates on M and M 1994; and 9 ellipticals in Kronawitter et al. 2000). For a bulge e,gal account for the uncertainty on α. few other galaxies (five in Sample A, one in Sample B), We derived the dynamical mass of the disc galaxies from either the ionised-gas (NGC 2911, Sil’chenko & Afanasiev 2 2004; NGC 5252, Morse et al. 1998), the Hi (IC 342, Mdyn = RVc /G, (9) Pizzella et al. 2005; NGC 3801, Hota et al. 2009) or the where R = r (Table 3). Most of the circular velocities CO kinematics (NGC 4526, Young et al. 2008), Milky Way 24.5 that we derived from Hi data yield no information about (Baes et al. 2003) rotational velocity at large radii are their radial coverage. Nevertheless, M corresponds to assumed to represent V . We adopted a 10% error when the dyn,gal c the galaxy mass within the optical radius, because r is V uncertainty from models or observations was not given. 24.5 c roughly indicative of the galaxy optical radius and the obser- Finally, we eliminated 7 galaxies (4 from Sample A, 3 vations of spatially-resolved Hi kinematics in spirals show from Sample B) since their quoted circular velocities are that the size of Hi discs closely matches that of a galaxy’s unrealistically low (NGC 1497, NGC 3384, and NGC 5576, optical disc (Ho et al. 2008a). Paturel et al. 2003; NGC 3642, NGC 4429, NGC 5347, and The masses computed from Eq. (8) and Eq. (9) are NGC 7052, Ho 2007). both available only for the 10 lenticular galaxies in our sam- The final circular velocities of 88 galaxies from Sample ple, since they share dynamical properties of both elliptical A (65) and Sample B (23) are listed in Tables 1 and 2. and spiral galaxies. For these galaxies, hMdyn,gal/Me,gali = 1.27 ± 1.07. 3.5 Masses The galaxy stellar masses, M⋆,gal, were derived from Li,gal under the assumption of constant mass-to-light ra- 2 We estimated the bulge mass as Mbulge= α re,bulgeσe /G, tio (M/L)i. (M/L)i estimates were inferred from our g − i where G is the gravitational constant and α = 5.0 ± 0.1 colours following Bell et al. (2003). Their mass-to-light ra- (Cappellari et al. 2006) is a dimensionless constant that de- tios were derived from the stellar population models of pends on galaxy structure. The effective radius, re,bulge, Bruzual & Charlot (2003), which are tuned to reproduce the for elliptical galaxies is extracted from their azimuthally- ages and metallicities of the local spiral galaxies. averaged light profile (Table 3), whereas the bulge effective radius of lenticular and spiral galaxies is obtained from two- dimensional photometric decomposition (Table 4). In deriv- 4 ANALYSIS ing Mbulge, we implicitly assumed that the measured value of σe is dominated by the bulge component. For late-type 4.1 Correlations Between M• and Bulge and galaxies we expect that the disc contribution to σe results Galaxy Parameters in an increase of the scatter of M as a function of the bulge We used the data obtained in §3 to build scaling relations between M• and the bulge (i.e., the velocity dispersion, lumi- 3 We selected the most recent and highest resolution ob- nosity, virial mass, S´ersic index, and mean effective surface servations available in the on-line HyperLeda catalogue brightness) and galaxy (luminosity, circular velocity, stel- (http://leda.univ-lyon1.fr) up to September 2009. lar, virial, and dynamical mass) properties. In addition to 8 A. Beifiori et al. the Sample A+B, we also built a comparison sample with rˆole in any of the M•–bulge and galaxy scaling relations. the 30 galaxies for which all the desired physical parameters Morphology only plays a small rˆole in the M• − M⋆,gal and could be measured. For each of the above parameters x, we in the M• − Vc relations. assume that there exists a relation of the form

M• x log = α + β log (10) 4.1.1 M• versus σe M⊙ x0 We have plotted the M − σ distribution for the Sample where x is a normalisation value chosen near the mean of • e 0 A+B in Figure 4. The slope of our M − σ relation is the distribution of x−values. • e consistent within the errors with those by Ferrarese & Ford The best-fit values of α and β, their associated uncer- (2005) and Lauer et al. (2007) as discussed by B09, and tainties, the total scatter ǫ and intrinsic scatter ǫ of the intr with that by G09 by default. On the other hand, the inclu- relation, the Spearman rank correlation coefficient ρ, and sion of the upper limits measured by B09 and G09 slightly the level of significance of the correlation P were obtained changes the zero point of the relation but does not appre- as a function of the sample at hand. The results are given in ciably affect its scatter. The M − σ relation is indeed the Table 5. The quoted errors are all derived through a boot- • e tightest correlation that we measure; its scatter is consis- strap technique. tent with G09 (ǫ = 0.44 ± 0.06 dex) and slightly larger Samples A+B and the comparison sample include than Ferrarese & Ford (2005, ǫ = 0.34 dex). According to both accurate determinations and upper limits of M . • G09, the increased fraction of spirals may be a source of the The proper handling of these heterogeneous data sets increased scatter with respect to previous estimates based requires that we perform a censored regression analy- mostly on SMBH measurements in early-type galaxies. Con- sis (Feigelson & Nelson 1985; Isobe et al. 1986) with the sistently, our analysis reveals that the M − σ scatter for ASURV4 package (Lavalley et al. 1992). Linear regressions • e late-type galaxies (ǫ = 0.52±0.14 dex) alone is slightly larger were calculated with the EM maximum-likelihood algorithm than that of early-type galaxies (ǫ = 0.38±0.04 dex). Never- implementing the technique of expectation (E-step) and theless, at small σ , some upper limits exceed the expected maximization (M-step) by Dempster et al. (1977) which as- e M as the line-widths for such low-σ outliers are most likely sumes normal residuals. For each relation, we checked that • e affected by the mass contribution of a conspicuous nuclear the distribution of residuals about the fitted line was normal. cluster (B09). The scatter for the late-type galaxies reduces With uncensored data, this analysis would be equivalent to to (ǫ = 0.38 ± 0.05 dex) by excluding the nucleated galaxies that of a standard least-squares linear regression. ASURV from the fit. Therefore, they are the cause for the observed gives as correlation coefficient the generalised Spearman difference between the scatter of early and late-type galaxies. rank correlation coefficient ρ (Akritas 1989) and computes We conclude that the M − σ relation is the same for both the level of significance of the correlation P . We derived the • e early and late-type galaxies. S0 galaxies overlap ellipticals scatter of the relation ǫ as the root-mean square (rms) de- at high σ values and spirals at low σ values. viation in log(M /M ) from the fitted relation assuming no e e • ⊙ Barred and unbarred galaxies follow the same M − measurement errors. This assumption does not affect our re- • σ relation within the errors. The same is not true for sults, since we wish to compare the relative tightness of the e galaxies with classical and pseudo-bulge. We have clas- different scaling relations for the comparison sample. sified our bulges according to their measured S´ersic in- G09 focused their analysis on M −σ and M −L . • e • i,bulge dex (n > 2 for classical and n 6 2 for pseudo-bulges; We have extended their analysis to a broader range of scaling Kormendy & Kennicutt 2004). We find slope differences in relations by performing least-square linear regressions with the M − σ relations of our 46 classical (β = 3.86 ± 0.71) the secure values of M and the bulge and galaxy parame- • e • and 11 pseudo-bulges (β = 5.63 ± 0.86), whereas their zero ters measured for Sample B. We used the MPFITEXY5 al- points (α = 8.09 ± 0.09 and α = 7.78 ± 0.33, respectively) gorithm (Williams et al. 2010), which accounts for measure- are in closer agreement within the errors. Conversely, Hu ment errors in both variables and the intrinsic scatter ǫ of intr (2008) found similar slopes and different zero points. At the relation. We used the IDL routine R CORRELATE to face values, our and Hu et al.’s correlation coefficients are compute the standard Spearman rank correlation coefficient in agreement. This is mostly due to the large error bars on ρ and the level of significance of the correlation. The intrinsic the M − σ coefficients for pseudo-bulges, which translate scatter of each relation was assessed by varying ǫ in the • e intr into a lower level of significance of the M − σ relation for fitting process to ensure that the reduced χ2 = 1. The total • e ν pseudo-bulges (P < 2%) with respect to that for classical scatter ǫ was derived as the rms deviation in log(M /M ) • ⊙ bulges (P < 0.1%). This results supports the recent findings from the fitted relation weighted by measurement errors. by Kormendy et al. (2011) that there is little or no correla- In addition to fitting the M –bulge and galaxy scaling • tion between M and pseudo-bulges. relations as outlined above, we also look in the subsections • At high σ values, the M of the Sample A+B shows a below for correlations against morphological type or nuclear e • weak steepening with respect to M − σ confirming pre- activity as listed in Tables 1 and 2. We will see that the • e vious results by Wyithe (2006), Lauer et al. (2007), and latter (morphology or nuclear activity) do not play a strong Dalla Bont`aet al. (2009). Finally, Figure 4 shows the absence of trends of the 4 The FORTRAN source code of the Astronomy M• − σe relation with nuclear activity. The different types Survival Analysis Package (v.1.3) is available at of nuclear activity cover all the σe range, with most LINERs http://www2.astro.psu.edu/statcodes/asurv. at high σe and most Seyferts at low σe. This is expected 5 The IDL source code of MPFITEXY is available at considering the strong dependence of nuclear spectral class http://purl.org/mike/mpfitexy/. on Hubble type (and therefore on σe), with LINERs and SMBH mass and galaxy properties 9

Figure 4. M• as a function of σe for 94 Sample A galaxies (89 Figure 5. M• as a function of Li,bulge for 38 Sample A galaxies upper limits from nebular line widths, circles; 5 upper limits from (35 upper limits from nebular line widths, circles; 3 upper lim- resolved kinematics, arrows) and 49 Sample B galaxies (squares). its from resolved kinematics, arrows) and 19 Sample B galaxies The total number of galaxies is N = 143. The error bars for (squares) for which two-dimensional bulge-to-disc decompositions σe are shown only in the upper panel for clarity. The lower and of the SDSS i-band images were performed. Symbols and panels upper ends of the dotted lines correspond to M• upper limits are as in Figure 4. estimated assuming an inclination of i = 33◦ and 81◦ for the unresolved Keplerian disc, respectively. Galaxies are plotted ac- cording to morphological type (upper panel) and nuclear activity G09 derived an updated value of the intrinsic scatter (lower panel). The dashed line is the G09 M• − σe relation. The of the M• − Lbulge relation, which is comparable to that of Sbc+ bin includes all galaxies classified as Sbc or later. the M• − σe relation in early-type galaxies, confirming the results of Marconi & Hunt (2003). According to them, the scatter of the M• − Lbulge relation is significantly reduced Seyfert nuclei being more frequent in ellipticals and spirals, when the bulge effective radius is extracted from a careful respectively (see Ho 2008, for a review). two-dimensional image decomposition. Figure 5 shows our M• − Li,bulge relation. The best-fit coefficients are in agreement within the errors with Graham (2007) and Sani et al. (2011). The scatter is slightly higher 4.1.2 M• versus Li,bulge than G09 who fit only early-type galaxies, but larger than

The correlation between M• and the luminosity of the that of the M• − σe relation. All galaxies show a simi- spheroidal component of a galaxy is also fairly tight (see lar M• − Li,bulge distribution with no dependence on mor- Graham 2007, and references therein). Graham (2007) phological type or nuclear activity. We cannot test the compared the different versions of the M• − Lbulge by claim that barred and unbarred galaxies follow different Kormendy & Gebhardt (2001), McLure & Dunlop (2002), M• − Li,bulge relations (Graham 2008; Graham & Li 2009; Marconi & Hunt (2003), and Erwin et al. (2004). Recently, Gadotti & Kauffmann 2009; Hu 2009), since the sample Sani et al. (2011) derived the M• − Lbulge relation by mea- galaxies with a strong bar were excluded for photometric suring the 3.6 µm bulge luminosity. Since the differing rela- decomposition and thus lack a Li,bulge measurement. For all tions do not predict the same SMBH mass, Graham (2007) the remaining galaxies, we did not model any other compo- investigated the effects of possible biases on the M• − Lbulge nents than the bulge and disc (see Table 4). relation including any dependency on the Hubble constant, the correction for dust attenuation in the bulges of disc 4.1.3 M versus M galaxies, the mis-classification of lenticular galaxies as el- • bulge liptical galaxies and the adopted regression analysis. These The connection between the M• and Lbulge suggests a lin- adjustments resulted in relations which are consistent with ear correlation with mass of the spheroidal component of each other and suitable for predicting similar M•. In par- the galaxy (Magorrian et al. 1998; McLure & Dunlop 2002; ticular, a detailed photometric decomposition of the galaxy Marconi & Hunt 2003; H¨aring & Rix 2004). light profile is crucial to obtaining a representative bulge The slope of our M• − Mbulge relation (Fig. 6) is con- luminosity and therefore a reliable M• − Lbulge. sistent within the errors with McLure & Dunlop (2002), 10 A. Beifiori et al.

Figure 6. M• as a function of Mbulge for the same sample as in Figure 7. M• as a function of n for the same sample as in Fig- Figure 5. Symbols and panels are as in Figure 4. The dashed line ure 5 for which two-dimensional bulge-to-disc decompositions of is the H¨aring & Rix (2004) M•−Mbulge relation. the SDSS i-band images were performed. Symbols and panels are as in Figure 4. The M•−n relations by Graham et al. (2001, 2003) and Graham & Driver (2007) are shown as the dashed and Marconi & Hunt (2003), Aller & Richstone (2007) and continuous lines, respectively. Sani et al. (2011) and slightly shallower than H¨aring & Rix (2004). This regression is not a marked improvement over who found no correlation between M• and S´ersic index with the M• −σe relation, as one might expect considering the ad- both observations and hydrodynamical simulations. ditional fitting parameter in the mass measurement (namely The correlation between M• and hµe,bulgei (Figure 8) the radius). Indeed, the M• − Mbulge is worse than the is also poor, lending further support to the idea that M• is M• − σe relation. However, Mbulge is still a better proxy for unrelated to the light concentration of the bulge, regardless M• than Li,bulge. Different Hubble types follow the same of galaxy morphology and nuclear activity. M• − Mbulge relation, with the lenticular galaxies cover- ing the whole range of masses. There is also no depen- dence of this relation on nuclear activity, in agreement with 4.1.5 M• versus Li,gal McLure & Dunlop (2002). Kormendy (2001) compared the B-band total magnitude with dynamically secure M• estimates in spheroids and few bulgeless disc galaxies. The poor correlation between M• 4.1.4 M• versus S´ersic n and hµe,bulgei and Li,gal led him to conclude that the evolution of SMBHs The two-dimensional photometric decompositions yield a is linked to bulges rather than discs. panoply of galaxy structural parameters, including the We compared our own Li,gal with M• as a function of S´ersic shape index n and mean effective surface brightness the morphological type in Figure 9. The Spearman rank cor- hµe,bulgei, both used as measure of the concentration of the relation coefficient suggests a correlation at 17% significance bulge light. The S´ersic index n has indeed been adopted by level, which is tighter than Kormendy (2001) but not as tight some as a good tracer for M• (Graham et al. 2001, 2003; as that for the M• − Lbulge relation. Our sample is short of Graham & Driver 2007). bulgeless galaxies which may explain the better agreement Our M•−n relation (Figure 7) differs significantly from for our M• and Li,gal with respect to Kormendy (2001). On the linear and quadratic relations with log M• and log n by the other hand, total and bulge luminosity differ for disc Graham et al. (2001, 2003) and Graham & Driver (2007), galaxies. The later the morphological type, the larger the respectively. In particular, the values of n for galaxies with discrepancy resulting in both a larger slope and scatter of high M• are not as large as those in Graham & Driver the M• − Li,gal relation with respect to M• − Lbulge. The (2007). The relation is characterised by a large scatter, small scatter is larger and the correlation weaker when the g−band Spearman correlation coefficient, and low level of signifi- total luminosity is considered. Our findings are consistent cance. Therefore, the correlation between M• and n is poor with Hu (2009, see their Fig. 6) and confirm that bulge lu- and the M•−n relation is not reliable for predicting M•. minosity is a better tracer of the mass of SMBHs than total Our findings are in agreement with Hopkins et al. (2007b) light of the galaxy. SMBH mass and galaxy properties 11

Figure 8. M• as a function of hµe,bulgei for the same sample as Figure 10. M• as a function of M⋆,gal for the same sample as in in Figure 7. Symbols and panels are as in Figure 4. Figure 9 for which (g − i) colours from SDSS g and i-band images were derived. Symbols and panels are as in Figure 4.

4.1.6 M• versus M⋆,gal, Me,gal, and Mdyn,gal

We have tested whether the scatter in predicting M• could be reduced by adopting M⋆,gal rather than Li,gal, since the galaxy luminosity is a proxy for its stellar mass. The M• − M⋆,gal relation shown in Figure 10 is a slight improve- ment over the M• − Li,gal relation. The slopes are compa- rable but the Spearman rank correlation coefficient of the former is higher with a 3% significance level. Ellipticals and lenticulars follow a tighter M• − M⋆,gal relation than late- type galaxies; the disc light clearly plays an anti-correlating rˆole, indicating once more that the bulge parameters drive SMBH correlations. We adopted the mass estimator from Cappellari et al. (2006) (i.e., the mass within the effective radius) for our ellipticals and lenticulars. The distribution of M• as a func- tion of Me,gal for the early-type galaxies is plotted in Fig- ure 11. They follow the same trend as the M• − Me,gal relation by Ferrarese et al. (2006). This is especially true 11 for Me,gal> 10 M⊙ where the fit slope and normalisation are consistent within the errors with Ferrarese et al. (2006). Less-massive galaxies seem to follow a steeper M• − Me,gal relation with a smaller normalisation. More data are how- ever needed in this mass range to carefully address any trend Figure 9. M• as a function of Li,gal for 62 Sample A galaxies differences. Introducing a new parameter re,gal and a specific (57 upper limits from nebular line widths, circles; 5 upper lim- exponent for σe ought to considerably reduce the scatter of its from resolved kinematics, arrows) and 28 Sample B galaxies the M• − σe relation but, in fact, it does not. In particu- (squares) for which azimuthally-averaged luminosity profiles from lar, the scatter of the M − σ relation is smaller than that SDSS i-band images were extracted. Symbols and panels are as • e in Figure 4. of M• − Me,gal if the same sample of early-type galaxies is considered. The dynamical mass Mdyn,gal (i.e., the mass within the optical radius) was taken as the galaxy mass estimator for lenticulars and spirals. It does not correlate with M• (Fig- 12 A. Beifiori et al.

Figure 11. M• as a function of Me,gal for 27 Sample A galaxies Figure 12. M• as a function of Mdyn,gal for 41 Sample A disc (24 upper limits from nebular line widths, circles; 3 upper lim- galaxies (38 upper limits from nebular line widths, circles; 3 up- its from resolved kinematics, arrows) and 24 Sample B galaxies per limits from resolved kinematics, arrows) and 6 Sample B (squares) ranging from E to S0a. Symbols and panels are as in Fig- (squares). Symbols and panels are as in Figure 4. The dashed ure 4. The dashed line is the Ferrarese et al. (2006) M•−Me,gal line is the Ho et al. (2008b) M•−Mdyn,gal relation. relation. ure 12), irrespective of Hubble type and nuclear activity. Our analysis reveals that the coarse M•−Mdyn,gal relation found by Ho et al. (2008b, ǫ = 0.61 dex) does not hold when 10 galaxies with Mdyn,gal6 10 M⊙ (i.e., at the lower mass end of the Mdyn,gal range) are taken into account. The scatter of the M•–galaxy mass relation is larger and the correlation weaker when M⋆,gal and Mdyn,gal are considered. Since the stellar and dynamical masses include the mass contribution of the disc component, we conclude that the bulge mass is a better tracer of M•. Nevertheless, the M• −σe is tighter and yet again more fundamental than the M• − Me,gal relation.

4.1.7 M• − Vc and Vc − σe relations

Assuming that Vc at large radii trace the dark matter halo, we study the possible link between SMBHs and dark matter halos by comparing M• with Vc. A possible rela- tion between M• and the dark matter depends clearly on the radius at which Vc is measured. Theoretical models that reproduce the observed luminosity function of quasars (Cattaneo 2001; Adams et al. 2003; Volonteri et al. 2003; Hopkins et al. 2005a; Springel et al. 2005) suggest that M• scales as a power law of the virial velocity (i.e., the circu- lar velocity of the galactic halo at the virial radius) of the galactic halo of the SMBH host. However, the conversion be- Figure 13. M• as a function of Vc for 65 Sample A disc galaxies (61 upper limits from nebular line widths, circles; 4 upper lim- tween V measured at large radii and virial velocity, depends c its from resolved kinematics, arrows) and 23 Sample B galaxies on the assumed model. (squares). Symbols and panels are as in Figure 4. The dashed line We show M• against Vc in Figure 13. There is a weak is the Ho (2007) M•−Vc relation. correlation between these quantities, which is mostly driven by the late-type galaxies. SMBH mass and galaxy properties 13

This is in agreement with previous studies by Zasov et al. (2005) and Ho et al. (2008b). Zasov et al. (2005) used a collection of 41 galaxies with M•, σe, and Vc from the literature to conclude that there is a coarse M•−Vc relation and that, for a given Vc, early-type galaxies have larger M• than late-type galaxies. Ho et al. (2008b) studied the M• − Vc relation for a sample of 154 nearby galaxies comprising both early and late-type systems for which M• was estimated from the mass-luminosity-line width relation (Kaspi et al. 2000; Greene & Ho 2005; Peterson & Bentz 2006) and Vc from Hi and optical data (Ho et al. 2008a). They found that the correlation between M• and Vc im- proves if only the galaxies with the most reliable Vc measure- ments are considered. The distribution of our spiral galaxies is consistent with the M•−Vc relation by Ho et al. (2008b), whereas the value of M• for elliptical and lenticular galax- ies is almost constant over the full observed Vc range (Fig- ure 13). Ho et al. (2008b) suggested that the main source of scatter in the M•−Vc relation is related to the dependence of Vc/σe on the bulge-to-disc ratio (Courteau et al. 2007; Ho 2007). Since the bulge-to-disc ratio scales with the light Figure 14. Vc − σe relation as a function of M• for the same concentration (Doi et al. 1993), which is another way to es- sample as in Figure 13. The dashed line is the Ho (2007) Vc−σe relation. timate the degree of bulge dominance, we derived Vc/σe as a function of C28. We found a general agreement with the re- lation found by Courteau et al. (2007). The Jeans equation the dark matter halo properties based on a merger-driven evokes a relation between the circular velocity of galaxy and hierarchical formation scenario. Still, the scatter we mea- its velocity dispersion for a pressure-supported system. The sure for the M −V relation is a factor ∼ 2 larger than V /σ relation was first reported by Whitmore et al. (1979) • c c e that of the M − σ relation, which is significantly more and more recently by Ferrarese (2002), Buyle et al. (2004), • e than argued by Volonteri et al. (2011) in their analysis of and Pizzella et al. (2005). Courteau et al. (2007) and Ho Kormendy & Bender (2011)’s data set. (2007) further demonstrated that the Vc−σe relation must depend on a third parameter which depends on the galaxy structure. 4.2 Correlations Between M• and Linear The existence of the M• − σe relation and the absence Combinations of Bulge and Galaxy of a single universal Vc − σe for all the morphological types Parameters is in contrast with the hypothesis that M• is more funda- mentally connected to halo than to bulge, as suggested by We wish to understand whether the relations between M• Ferrarese (2002) and Pizzella et al. (2005). We conclude that and bulge and galaxy properties studied in §4.1 can be im- the SMBH mass is associated with the bulge and not the proved by the addition of a third parameter. For the bulge halo (see also Peng 2010) by analysing the Vc − σe relation or the galaxy parameters x and y in Table 6, a correlation as a function of M• for our sample galaxies (Figure 14). of the form For a given M•, the range of Vc is on average 1.6 times M• x y larger than the range of σe demonstrating that M• is driven log = γ + α log + β log (11) M⊙ x0 y0 by σe and not by Vc. The few bulgeless galaxies known to host a SMBH (NGC 4395, Filippenko & Ho 2003; POX 52, is assumed, where x0 and y0 are normalisation values cho- Barth et al. 2004; NGC 1042, Shields et al. 2008) are an ex- sen near the mean of the distribution of x and y values ception to this scenario, which is supported by cases like respectively. The fit parameters are the offset γ, and the M33. The latter is a pure disc galaxy, which does not show logarithmic slopes α and β. The best-fit values of α, β, and any evidence of a SMBH (Gebhardt et al. 2001) but has a γ, their associated uncertainties, the total scatter ǫ and in- massive dark matter halo (Corbelli 2003). trinsic scatter ǫintr of the relation are given in Table 6. The More recently, Kormendy & Bender (2011) confirmed Spearman rank test cannot be evaluated in the same way as our early findings (Beifiori 2010) by extending the anal- described in §4.1 as it applies to two variables. To estimate ysis of the Vc−σe relation to bulgeless galaxies. They re- the degree of correlations between the parameters in use, we ported an absence of correlation between Vc and σe unless applied the Spearman rank statistic using the projections of the galaxy also contains a bulge, suggesting that the funda- the planes once the combination of the two independent vari- mental driver for M• is σe for all Hubble types and that Vc ables has been fixed to its best-fit values. This provides an plays only a small rˆole in galaxies with a bulge. Although indication of the degree of correlation between several linear at this later cosmic time the M•−Vc is coarser than the combinations. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient ρ, M• − σe relation, Volonteri et al. (2011) remind us that a and the significance of the correlation P derived for the pro- tighter connection in the past is not precluded. At earlier jections are also given in Table 6. The quoted errors are all epochs, the SMBH assembly was more likely coupled to computed through a bootstrap technique. 14 A. Beifiori et al.

For both Samples A+B and the comparison sample, To this aim we considered different linear combinations of we performed a censored regression analysis with two in- the bulge parameters with M• (Figure 16). The correlation dependent variables assuming normal residuals. The best- between M•, σe, and re,bulge is as tight as the M• − σe (Fig- fit parameters were computed with the EM algorithm im- ure 16a). Taking into account re,bulge does not significantly plemented in the ASURV package which yields maximum improve the M• − σe fit. The relation between M•, Li,bulge, likelihood estimates from a censored data set allowing, in and re,bulge (Figure 16b) is not as strong as that between the general form, N observables distributed via a multivari- M•, σe, and re,bulge, but it is a slight improvement over ate Gaussian distribution. We applied this technique to the M• − Li,bulge. The relation between M•, σe, and Li,bulge is special case of two independent variables and another depen- as tight as that between M•, σe, and re,bulge (Figure 16c). dent variable containing the censored data. The regression The relation between M•, σe, and Mbulge (Figure 16d) is problem solves like a least-square fit but accounting for cen- expected since Mbulge is known to correlate with M• and it sored data. It uses initial guesses from an ordinary linear depends on both σe and re,bulge. For this reason the two cor- regression of the non-censored data and then converges on relations with M• and either σe and Mbulge or re,bulge and the new censored values. Mbulge are different (but not independent) expressions of the The standard deviation is estimated in the standard same relationship. Thus, larger SMBHs are associated with fashion, weighted for a factor which accounts for the cen- more massive and larger bulges, as understood in the frame- sored data (see Isobe et al. 1986, for details). The gener- work of coevolution of spheroids and SMBHs. Hopkins et al. alised Spearman rank correlation coefficient, and the sig- (2007a,b) first studied the residuals of the M• − Mbulge and nificance of the correlation for the projections of planes, M• − σe relations with bulge properties, finding tighter cor- are based on the technique described in Akritas (1989). relations between the combination of the bulge parameters The total scatter was computed as the rms deviation in and M•. This bolstered the notion of a BHFP. The bulge pa- log(M•/M⊙) from the fitted relation assuming no measure- rameters Mbulge and Li,bulge are indeed physically related to ment errors. each other through the fundamental plane relation (FP) and We used our own modified version of the MPFITEXY virial theorem. The existence of such BHFP has important algorithm to perform a least-squares linear regression of implications for the largest M• and resolves the apparent Sample B’s data with two independent variables. Measure- conflict between expected and measured values of M• for ment errors were invoked in the derivation of best-fit pa- the outliers in both M• − σe and M• − Mbulge relations (e.g. rameters, total, and intrinsic scatter. The Spearman rank Bernardi et al. 2007; Lauer et al. 2007). A similar correla- correlation coefficient and level of significance of the cor- tion, but between M•, re,bulge, and hµe,bulgei, was reported relation were also derived by using the projections of the by Barway & Kembhavi (2007) for nearby ellipticals with best-fit plane given all possible parameter combinations. measured M•. This correlation has a smaller scatter than The actual computation was done using the IDL routine the M• − σe and M• − Lbulge relations and gives further R CORRELATE. support to the existence of a FP-type relation for SMBHs. Furthermore, by comparing the tightness of the corre- lations between M• and linear combination of the bulge pa- 4.2.1 M• versus Bulge Parameters rameters, we argue that σe is the parameter that drives the

So far we have found that M• is more strongly related connection with M• in the BHFP. A small contribution is with σe than Li,bulge and Mbulge. Nevertheless, the corre- due to re,bulge or Li,bulge. Similar results were obtained by lation between the M• and Mbulge suggests that a pos- Aller & Richstone (2007) who compared M• with σe, Ie,bulge sible combination of the bulge properties can result in a and re,bulge. Thus, including an additional parameter to the tighter correlation with M•. Note that the BHFP derives relation does not improve the quality of the fit, with σe al- from the FP which connects re,bulge, σe, and hµe,bulgei ways being the dominant parameter. together (Dressler et al. 1987; Djorgovski & Davis 1987; Jørgensen et al. 2007, and reference therein). Therefore, we 4.2.2 M• versus Galaxy Parameters have analysed the residuals of M• − σe, M• − Lbulge, and M• − Mbulge relations to test whether there is the ev- We also wish to test if the shallow M• − Li,gal and idence for an additional dependence with an additional M•−M⋆,gal relations can be improved by the addition of an- parameter. The residuals were obtained as the differ- other galaxy parameter. Therefore, we calculated the resid- ence between the observed data and their expected val- uals of M• − σe, M• − Li,gal, and M•−M⋆,gal relations to ues from the fitting relations in Table 5. We compared look for the signature of an additional galaxy parameter. the residuals in log(M•/M•[σe]), log(M•/M•[Li,bulge]), and The residuals were obtained as the difference between the log(M•/M•[Mbulge]) with the bulge photometric and kine- data points and the relation fits listed in Table 5. We com- matic properties (i.e., hµe,bulgei, re,bulge, n, and σe; Fig- pared the residuals in log(M•/M•[σe]), log(M•/M•[Li,gal]), ure 15). There is no trend between log(M•/M•[σe]) and and log(M•/M•[M⋆,gal]) with the galaxy photometric and other bulge properties (Figure 15, left column), whereas kinematic properties (i.e., C28, Ie,gal, re,gal, and σe; Fig- log(M•/M•[Li,bulge]) and log(M•/M•[Mbulge]) show a very ure 17). For log(M•/M•[σe]), no trends with other galaxy weak dependence on re,bulge according to the the Spearman properties are found whereas the log(M•/M•[Li,gal]) and rank correlation coefficient and their significance intervals log(M•/M•[M⋆,gal]) relations show a weak dependence on re ∼ 6% and ∼ 2%, respectively (Figure 15, middle and left according to the Spearman rank correlation coefficient with columns, respectively). This was confirmed by Sani et al. a significance levels of 0.3% and 0.9%, respectively. We also (2011), who found no correlation of the residual with re. examined the residuals of the M•−(g − i) relation to check We have tested for the more fundamental driver of M•. that our results are not affected by the propagated errors in SMBH mass and galaxy properties 15

Figure 15. Residuals of the M• − σe, M• − Li,bulge, M•−Mbulge relations versus hµe,bulgei, re,bulge, n, σe for 38 Sample A galaxies (35 upper limits from nebular line widths, filled circles; 3 upper limits from resolved kinematics, open circles) and 19 Sample B galaxies (squares). The total number of galaxies is N = 57. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient ρ is given in each panel.

Figure 16. M• as a function of σe and re,bulge (a), Li,bulge and re,bulge (b), σe and Li,bulge (c), Mbulge and re,bulge (d) for the same sample as in Figure 15. The logarithmic slopes α and β and offset γ of the fitted relation are given in each panel.

the determination of M⋆,gal. Figure 18 shows the different correlation coefficient despite the addition of other fitting linear combinations of two galaxy parameters with M•.A parameters, argues that the main acting parameter is σe. few tight correlations are found when considering the total We conclude that the addition of bulge (e.g., re,bulge, galaxy rather than bulge parameters. The tightness always L , M ) or galaxy (e.g., r , L , M ) struc- depends on having σ as a fitting parameter (Table 6), i.e., i,bulge bulge e,gal i,gal ⋆,gal e tural parameters does not appreciably modify and improve the Spearman rank correlation coefficient is higher when σe the M• − σe relation. We exclude that parameter covari- is taken into account. The constancy of the Spearman rank ances would produce the same scatter in both the M• − σe and M• − σe−re relations. Such a conspiracy would require 16 A. Beifiori et al.

Figure 17. Residuals of the M• − σe, M• − Li,gal, M•−M⋆,gal relations versus C28, Ie,gal, re,gal, σe for 62 Sample A galaxies (57 upper limits from nebular line widths, filled circles; 5 upper limits from resolved kinematics, open circles) and 28 Sample B galaxies (squares). The total number of galaxies is N = 90. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient ρ is given in each panel.

Figure 18. M• as a function of σe and re,gal (a), Li,galand re,gal (b), σe and Li,gal (c), M⋆,gal and re,gal (d), and σe and M⋆,gal (e) for the same sample as in Figure 17. The logarithmic slopes α and β and offset γ of the fitted relation are given in each panel.

an anti-correlation between σe and re,bulge (or re,gal) which lations regardless of the sequence of galaxy evolution dur- is not observed. ing the hierarchical mass assembly (Robertson et al. 2006a; Schawinski et al. 2006; Croton 2009). A more comprehensive assessment the M• scaling relations scatter thus enables a better characterisation of the different SMBH/galaxy for- 5 DISCUSSION mation models.

The existence of the M• scaling relations implies that SMBH Our large sample of galaxies with secure determination and galaxy formation processes are closely linked. Some of or upper limits of M• has enabled a thorough investigation the challenges of the current models of SMBH formation of the SMBH demography over a wide range of M•, mor- and evolution include reproducing and maintaining the re- phological type, and nuclear activity. After establishing the SMBH mass and galaxy properties 17 unbiased mapping of M• upper limits against that of secure BHFP, Hopkins et al. 2007a,b). Since its scatter does not M•, we tested whether M• is more fundamentally driven by change appreciably compared to that of the M• − σe rela- one of the several bulge (i.e., the velocity dispersion, lumi- tion, the addition of re,bulge is barely an improvement. This nosity, virial mass, S´ersic index, and mean effective surface is a further confirmation that σe is the fundamental param- brightness) and galaxy (luminosity, circular velocity, stellar, eter which drives also the BHFP. virial, and dynamical mass) parameters known to correlate with the SMBH mass, and if the known scaling relations can Our findings about the tightness of scaling relations be improved with the addition of a third parameter. such as the M• − σe may be interpreted in the framework of self-regulating feedback in galaxies Hopkins et al. (2009). • We argue that M• is fundamentally driven by σe, con- These authors argued that the energy released from the ac- sidering that the M• − σe relation has the tightest scatter cretion of gas onto a SMBH is enough to stop further gas with respect to all other scaling relations. The scatter of our accretion, drive away the gas, and quench star formation. M• − σe relation is comparable to G09 but slightly larger Hopkins et al. (2009) studied the relation between M• and than that of Ferrarese & Ford (2005). At small σe, some M• the mass of the gas accreting onto the SMBH as a func- upper limits exceed the expectation value as they likely ac- tion of the distance from the central engine. The scatter count for the mass of a conspicuous nuclear cluster (B09). of the M•-stellar mass relation increases at smaller radii Excluding these galaxies from the fit reduces the scatter to (i.e., approaching the radius of influence of the SMBH) and Ferrarese & Ford (2005)’s value. Barred and unbarred galax- decreases at larger radii (i.e., where the SMBH scaling re- ies as in B09 and G09 follow the same M•−σe relation within lations are defined). This has been interpreted in terms of the errors, contrary to Graham (2008)’s findings. Classical self-regulated growth of SMBHs, where the SMBH accretes and pseudo-bulges were identified according to their S´ersic and regulates itself without accounting for the gas supply index (Kormendy & Kennicutt 2004). The M• −σe relations but just being controlled by the bulge properties. of classical and pseudo-bulges have a different slope. The In this scenario, σe is the property which gives the tight- low significance of the M• − σe relation for pseudo-bulges is est connection with MBH since it determines the depth of in agreement with more recent findings by Kormendy et al. the local potential well from which the gas must be ex- (2011) and suggests that the formation and growth histories pelled. Younger et al. (2008) studied self-regulated models of SMBHs depend on the host bulge type. of SMBHs growth in different scenarios of major mergers, • The M• − Li,bulge relation is clearly not as tight as the minor mergers, and disc instabilities, to find that SMBHs M•−σe one. However, the fact that G09 found a M•−Li,bulge depend on the scale at which self-regulation occurs. They relation as tight as the M• − σe one is not in contradiction compared the bulge binding energy and total binding en- with our results, since G09 accounted only for early-type ergy with M•, finding that the total binding energy is not a galaxies. The same is true for the M• − Mbulge correlation, good indicator of M• mass in disc-dominated systems. This although the bulge mass proved to be a better proxy of M• agrees with our findings that the late-type systems deviate than Lbulge and it includes re,bulge as an additional fitting most significantly from the M•-galaxy and BHFP scaling parameter. relations. • Contrary to previous findings (Graham et al. 2001, Several SMBH formation models predict a connec- 2003; Graham & Driver 2007), we find little or no cor- tion between M• and the total mass of the galaxy relation between M• and S´ersic n in agreement with (Haehnelt et al. 1998; Silk & Rees 1998; Adams et al. 2001; Hopkins et al. (2007b). The latter stated that M• is un- Croton et al. 2006; Croton 2009) such that if the dark and related with the light concentration of the bulge based on baryonic matter act to form the bulge and SMBH, the dark observations and simulations. Consistently, we confirm that halo determines the bulge and SMBH properties. There- M• and hµe,bulgei are poorly correlated. fore, the mass of the SMBH and dark matter halo should • The correlations between M• and galaxy luminosity or be connected (Cattaneo 2001; Hopkins et al. 2005a,b). Nu- mass are not a marked improvement over the M• − σe rela- merous recent studies have erred along those lines. For in- tion. These scaling relations are strongly sensitive to the stance, Bandara et al. (2009) studied the correlation be- morphology of the host galaxies, with the presence of a tween M• and total (luminous+dark) mass of the galaxy disc playing an anti-correlating rˆole, as first pointed out by estimated from numerical simulations of gravitational lens- (Kormendy 2001). This is a further indication that bulges ing. Their relation suggests that the more massive halos are driving the SMBH correlations and SMBH evolution. are more efficient at forming SMBHs than the less mas- • We found that the M•−Vc relation is significantly sive ones; the slope of their relation suggests merger-driven, coarser than that of the M• − σe relation, with a scatter feedback-regulated processes of SMBH growth. Likewise, about twice larger, suggesting that M• is more strongly con- Booth & Schaye (2010) used self-consistent simulations of trolled by the baryons than the dark matter. the coevolution of SMBHs and galaxies to confirm the • To assess the need for an additional parameter relation by Bandara et al. (2009) and to prove that self- in the M•-bulge/galaxy scaling relations, we performed regulation of the SMBH growth occurs on dark matter halo both a residual analysis and third-parameter fits as in scales. Volonteri & Natarajan (2009) investigated through Hopkins et al. (2007b), Barway & Kembhavi (2007), and numerical simulations the observational signature of the self- Aller & Richstone (2007). To this aim we considered dif- regulated SMBH growth by analysing the mass assembly ferent linear combinations of bulge or galaxy parameters history of black hole seeds. They found that the M• − σe with M•. The strongest correlations always include σe as relation stems from the merging history of massive dark ha- a fundamental structural parameter. The tightest relation los, and that its slope and scatter depend on the halo seed is found between M•, σe, and re,bulge (also known as the and specific SMBH self-regulation process. 18 A. Beifiori et al.

Our observational results are not supportive of such re- sults. We found only a weak correlation of M• with Vc. This agrees with our expectations based on the observed tightness of the M• −σe relation and given the fact that the scatter of the Vc − σe relation is large and morphologically-dependent (Courteau et al. 2007; Ho 2007). The M•-Vc relation may be improved with homogeneous measurements of the Vc data base. Indeed, while our collec- tion of observed velocities is as current and reliable as possi- ble, especially for spiral galaxies, we still lack a fully homo- geneous data base. Many of us are working on improvements of this nefarious situation. However it is clear, as this work demonstrates, that the M•-σ is the definitive fundamental relation of the SMBH-bulge connection.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We are indebted to Ralf Bender, Michele Cappellari, Lodovico Coccato, Elena Dalla Bont`a, Victor Debattista, John Kormendy, Tod Lauer, Lorenzo Morelli, Alessandro Pizzella, Marc Sarzi, and Roberto Saglia for many useful dis- cussions and suggestions. We also thank Jairo M´endez Abreu for his GASP2D package which we used to measure the pho- tometric parameters of our sample galaxies. We acknowledge the anonymous referee for valuable comments that led to an improved presentation. AB is grateful to Queen’s Uni- versity for its hospitality while part of this paper was be- ing written. AB was also supported by a grant from Ac- cademia dei Lincei and Royal Society as well as STFC rolling grant ST/I001204/1 “Survey Cosmology and Astrophysics”. EMC was supported by Padua University through grants CPDA089220/08 and CPDR095001/09 and by Italian Space Agency through grant ASI-INAF I/009/10/0. SC and YZ acknowledge support from the Natural Science and Engi- neering Science Council of Canada. This research has made use of the HyperLeda database, NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED), and Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS). SMBH mass and galaxy properties 19

REFERENCES MNRAS, 332, 65 Dempster A. P., Laird N. M., Rubin D. B., 1977, J. Roy. Abazajian, K. N. et al. 2009, ApJS, 182, 543 Stat. Soc. B, 39, 1 Adams F. C., Graff D. S., Mbonye M., Richstone D. O., Di Matteo T., Springel V., Hernquist L., 2005, Nature, 433, 2003, ApJ, 591, 125 604 Adams F. C., Graff D. S., Richstone D. O., 2001, ApJ, 551, Djorgovski S., Davis M., 1987, ApJ, 313, 59 L31 Doi M., Fukugita M., Okamura S., 1993, MNRAS, 264, 832 Aihara, H., et al. 2011, ApJS, 193, 29 Donzelli C. J., Chiaberge M., Macchetto F. D., Madrid Akritas M., 1989, Technical Reports and Preprints Series J. P., Capetti A., Marchesini D., 2007, ApJ, 667, 780 87. Dept. Statistics, Penn State University, Philadelphia Dressler A., 1989, in Osterbrock D. E. & Miller J. S. eds., Aller M. C., Richstone D. O., 2007, ApJ, 665, 120 IAU Symp. 134 Active Galactic Nuclei, p. 217 Baes M., Buyle P., Hau G. K. T., Dejonghe H., 2003, MN- Dressler A., Lynden-Bell D., Burstein D., Davies R. L., RAS, 341, L44 Faber S. M., Terlevich R., Wegner G., 1987, ApJ, 313, 42 Bandara K., Crampton D., Simard L., 2009, ApJ, 704, 1135 Erwin P., Graham A. W., Caon N., 2004, in Ho L. C., Barth A. J., Ho L. C., Rutledge R. E., Sargent W. L. W., ed, Coevolution of Black Holes and Galaxies. Carnegie 2004, ApJ, 607, 90 Observatories, Pasadena, p. 12 Barway S., Kembhavi A., 2007, ApJ, 662, L67 Feigelson E. D., Nelson P. I., 1985, ApJ, 293, 192 Beifiori A., 2010, PhD thesis, Universit`adi Padova Feoli A., Mancini L., 2009, ApJ, 703, 1502 Beifiori A., Sarzi M., Corsini E. M., Dalla Bont`aE., Pizzella Ferrarese L., 2002, ApJ, 578, 90 A., Coccato L., Bertola F., 2009, ApJ, 692, 856 (B09) Ferrarese L., et al. 2006, ApJ, 644, L21 Bell E. F., McIntosh D. H., Katz N., Weinberg M. D., 2003, Ferrarese L., Ford H., 2005, Space Sci. Rev., 116, 523 ApJS, 149, 289 Ferrarese L., Merritt D., 2000, ApJ, 539, L9 Bender R., Saglia R. P., Gerhard O. E., 1994, MNRAS, Filippenko A. V., Ho L. C., 2003, ApJ, 588, L13 269, 785 Freedman W. L., et al. 2001, ApJ, 553, 47 Bernardi M., Hyde J. B., Sheth R. K., Miller C. J., Nichol Freeman K. C., 1970, ApJ, 160, 811 R. C., 2007, AJ, 133, 1741 Gadotti D. A., 2009, MNRAS, 393, 1531 Bernardi M., Sheth R. K., Tundo E., Hyde J. B., 2007, Gadotti D. A., Kauffmann G., 2009, MNRAS, 399, 621 ApJ, 660, 267 Gebhardt K., et al. 2000, ApJ, 539, L13 Binney J. J., Davies R. L., Illingworth G. D., 1990, ApJ, Gebhardt K., et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 2469 361, 78 Graham A. W., 2007, MNRAS, 379, 711 Blanton M. R., Kazin E., Muna D., Weaver B. A., Price- Graham A. W., 2008, ApJ, 680, 143 Whelan A., 2011, AJ, 142, 31 Graham A. W., Driver S. P., 2005, Pub. Astr. Soc. Aus- Booth C. M., Schaye J., 2010, MNRAS, 405, L1 tralia, 22, 118 Bottinelli L., Gouguenheim L., Paturel G., de Vaucouleurs Graham A. W., Driver S. P., 2007, ApJ, 655, 77 G., 1983, A&A, 118, 4 Graham A. W., Erwin P., Caon N., Trujillo I., 2001, ApJ, Bruzual G., Charlot S., 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000 563, L11 Buyle P., Baes M., Dejonghe H., 2004, in Ryder S., Pisano Graham A. W., Erwin P., Caon N., Trujillo I., 2003, Rev. D., Walker M., Freeman K., eds, IAU Symp. 220, Dark Mex. Astron. Astrof. Conf. Ser., 17, 196 Matter in Galaxies. Astron. Soc. Pac., San Francisco, p. Graham A. W., Li I., 2009, ApJ, 698, 812 317 Granato G. L., De Zotti G., Silva L., Bressan A., Danese Caon N., Capaccioli M., D’Onofrio M., 1993, MNRAS, 265, L., 2004, ApJ, 600, 580 1013 Greene J. E., Ho L. C., 2005, ApJ, 627, 721 Cappellari M., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 1126 G¨ultekin K., et al. 2009, ApJ, 698, 198 (G09) Cattaneo A., 2001, MNRAS, 324, 128 Haehnelt M. G., Natarajan P., Rees M. J., 1998, MNRAS, Coccato L., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 394, 1249 300, 817 Corbelli E., 2003, MNRAS, 342, 199 H¨aring N., Rix H., 2004, ApJ, 604, L89 Courteau S., de Jong R. S., Broeils A. H., 1996, ApJ, 457, Ho L. C., 2007, ApJ, 668, 94 L73 Ho L. C., 2008, ARA&A, 46, 475 Courteau S., McDonald M., Widrow L. M., Holtzman J., Ho L. C., Darling J., Greene J. E., 2008a, ApJS, 177, 103 2007, ApJ, 655, L21 Ho L. C., Darling J., Greene J. E., 2008b, ApJ, 681, 128 Cox T. J., Dutta S. N., Di Matteo T., Hernquist L., Hop- Ho L. C., Filippenko A. V., Sargent W. L. W., 1997, ApJS, kins P. F., Robertson B., Springel V., 2006, ApJ, 650, 791 112, 315 Croton D. J., 2009, MNRAS, 394, 1109 Ho L. C., Greene J. E., Filippenko A. V., Sargent W. L. W., Croton D. J., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 11 2009, ApJS, 183, 1 Dalla Bont`a E., Ferrarese L., Corsini E. M., Miralda- Hopkins P. F., Hernquist L., Cox T. J., Di Matteo T., Escud´eJ., Coccato L., Sarzi M., Pizzella A., Beifiori A., Robertson B., Springel V., 2005a, ApJ, 630, 716 2009, ApJ, 690, 537 Hopkins P. F., Hernquist L., Cox T. J., Di Matteo T., Mar- de Vaucouleurs G., de Vaucouleurs A., Corwin Jr. H. G., tini P., Robertson B., Springel V., 2005b, ApJ, 630, 705 Buta R. J., Paturel G., Fouque P., 1991, Third Ref- Hopkins P. F., Hernquist L., Cox T. J., Di Matteo T., erence Catalogue of Bright Galaxies (RC3). Springer- Robertson B., Springel V., 2006, ApJS, 163, 1 Verlag, Berlin Hopkins P. F., Hernquist L., Cox T. J., Robertson B., Debattista V. P., Corsini E. M., Aguerri J. A. L., 2002, Krause E., 2007a, ApJ, 669, 45 20 A. Beifiori et al.

Hopkins P. F., Hernquist L., Cox T. J., Robertson B., Novak G. S., Faber S. M., Dekel A., 2006, ApJ, 637, 96 Krause E., 2007b, ApJ, 669, 67 Oemler Jr. A., 1976, ApJ, 209, 693 Hopkins P. F., Murray N., Thompson T. A., 2009, MNRAS, Paturel G., et al. 1997, A&AS, 124, 109 398, 303 Paturel G., Petit C., Prugniel P., Theureau G., Rousseau Hota A., Lim J., Ohyama Y., Saikia D. J., Dihn-v-Trung J., Brouty M., Dubois P., Cambr´esy L., 2003, A&A, 412, Croston J. H., 2009, in Saikia D. J., Green D. A., Gupta 45 Y., Venturi T., eds., ASP Conf. Ser. Vol. 407, The Low- Peng C. Y., 2010, in Peterson B., Somerville R., Storchi- Frequency Radio Universe. Astron. Soc. Pac., San Fran- Bergmann T., eds, IAU Symp. 267 Co-Evolution of Cen- cisco, p. 104 tral Black Holes and Galaxies. Cambridge Univ. Press, Hu J., 2008, MNRAS, 386, 2242 Cambridge, p. 161 Hu J., 2009, submitted (arXiv/astro-ph:0908.2028) Peterson B. M., Bentz M. C., 2006, New Astr. Rev., 50, Isobe T., Feigelson E. D., Nelson P. I., 1986, ApJ, 306, 490 796 Jørgensen I., Franx M., Kjaergaard P., 1995, MNRAS, 276, Pizzella A., Corsini E. M., Dalla Bont`aE., Sarzi M., Coc- 1341 cato L., Bertola F., 2005, ApJ, 631, 785 Jørgensen I., Chiboucas K., Flint K., Bergmann M., Barr Quillen A. C., Frogel J. A., Gonzalez R. A., 1994, ApJ, J., Davies R., 2007, ApJ, 654, L179 437, 162 Kaspi S., Smith P. S., Netzer H., Maoz D., Jannuzi B. T., Robertson B., Cox T. J., Hernquist L., Franx M., Hopkins Giveon U., 2000, ApJ, 533, 631 P. F., Martini P., Springel V., 2006a, ApJ, 641, 21 Kormendy J., 2001, in Funes J. G., Corsini E. M., eds, ASP Robertson B., Hernquist L., Cox T. J., Di Matteo T., Hop- Conf. Ser. 230, Galaxy Disks and Disk Galaxies. Astron. kins P. F., Martini P., Springel V., 2006b, ApJ, 641, 90 Soc. Pac., San Francisco, p. 247 Samurovi´cS., Danziger I. J., 2005, MNRAS, 363, 769 Kormendy J., Kennicutt R. C. Jr., 2004, ARA&A, 42, 603 Sani, E., Marconi, A., Hunt, L. K., & Risaliti, G. 2011, Kormendy J., Bender R., 2009, ApJ, 691, L142 MNRAS, 413, 1479 Kormendy J., Bender R., 2011, Nature, 469, 377 Sarzi M., et al. 2002, ApJ, 567, 237 Kormendy J., Bender R., Cornell M. E., 2011, Nature, 469, Schawinski K., et al. 2006, Nature, 442, 888 374 Schlegel D. J., Finkbeiner D. P., Davis M., 1998, ApJ, 500, Kormendy J., Fisher D. B., Cornell M. E., Bender R., 2009, 525 ApJS, 182, 216 S´ersic J. L., 1968, Atlas de galaxias australes. Observatorio Kormendy J., Gebhardt K., 2001, in Martel H., Wheeler Astronomico, Cordoba J. C., eds, The 20th Texas Symposium on Relativistic Shao Z., Xiao Q., Shen S., Mo H. J., Xia X., Deng Z., 2007, Astrophysics. Am. Inst. Phys., New York, 586, 363 ApJ, 659, 1159 Kormendy J., Richstone D., 1995, ARA&A, 33, 581 Shields J. C., Walcher C. J., B¨oker T., Ho L. C., Rix H., Kronawitter A., Saglia R. P., Gerhard O., Bender R., 2000, van der Marel R. P., 2008, ApJ, 682, 104 A&AS, 144, 53 Sil’chenko O. K., Afanasiev V. L., 2004, AJ, 127, 2641 Lauer T. R., et al. 2007, ApJ, 662, 808 Silk J., Rees M. J., 1998, A&A, 331, L1 Lavalley M. P., Isobe T., Feigelson E. D., 1992, BAAS, 24, Somerville R. S., 2009, MNRAS, 399, 1988 839 Springel V., Di Matteo T., Hernquist L., 2005, MNRAS, MacArthur L. A., Courteau S., Holtzman J. A., 2003, ApJ, 361, 776 582, 689 Thomas, J., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 545 Magorrian J., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 2285 Tonry J. L., Dressler A., Blakeslee J. P., Ajhar E. A., Marconi A., Hunt L. K., 2003, ApJ, 589, L21 Fletcher A. B., Luppino G. A., Metzger M. R., Moore Markwardt C. B., 2009, in Bohlender D. A., Durand, D., C. B., 2001, ApJ, 546, 681 P. Dowler, eds., ASP Conf. Ser. Vol. 411, Astronomical Tremaine S., et al. 2002, ApJ, 574, 740 Data Analysis Software and Systems XVIII. Astron. Soc. Trujillo I., Erwin P., Asensio Ramos A., Graham A. W., Pac., San Francisco, p. 251 2004, AJ, 127, 1917 McDonald M., Courteau S., Tully R. B., 2009, MNRAS, Tully R. B., 1988, Nearby Galaxies Catalog. Cambridge 394, 2022 Univ. Press, Cambridge McDonald M., Courteau S., Tully R. B., Roediger J., 2011, Verheijen M. A. W., Sancisi R., 2001, A&A, 370, 765 MNRAS, 519 Vittorini V., Shankar F., Cavaliere A., 2005, MNRAS, 363, McLure R. J., Dunlop J. S., 2002, MNRAS, 331, 795 1376 M´endez-Abreu J., 2008, PhD thesis, Universit`adi Padova, Volonteri M., Haardt F., Madau P., 2003, ApJ, 582, 559 Universidad de La Laguna Volonteri M., Natarajan P., 2009, MNRAS, 400, 1911 M´endez-Abreu J., Aguerri J. A. L., Corsini E. M., Simon- Volonteri M., Natarajan P., Gultekin K., 2011, ApJ, 737, neau E., 2008, A&A, 478, 353 50 Moffat A. F. J., 1969, A&A, 3, 455 Wegner G., et al. 2003, AJ, 126, 2268 Monaco P., Fontanot F., Taffoni G., 2007, MNRAS, 375, Whitmore B. C., Schechter P. L., Kirshner R. P., 1979, 1189 ApJ, 234, 68 Mor´eJ. J., Garbow B. S., Hillstrom K. E., 1980, User guide Wyithe J. S. B., 2006, MNRAS, 365, 1082 for MINPACK-1, Technical Report ANL-80-74. Argonne Williams M. J., Bureau M., Cappellari M., 2010, MNRAS, National Laboratory, Argonne 409, 1330 Morse J. A., Cecil G., Wilson A. S., Tsvetanov Z. I., 1998, Wolf J., Martinez G. D., Bullock J. S., Kaplinghat M., ApJ, 505, 159 Geha M., Mu˜noz R. R., Simon J. D., Avedo F. F., 2010, SMBH mass and galaxy properties 21

MNRAS, 406, 1220 York, D. G., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1579 Young L. M., Bureau M., Cappellari M., 2008, ApJ, 676, 317 Younger J. D., Hopkins P. F., Cox T. J., Hernquist L., 2008, ApJ, 686, 815 Zasov A. V., Petrochenko L. N., Cherepashchuk A. M., 2005, Astronomy Reports, 49, 362 22 A. Beifiori et al. ) • ⊙ M ) ◦ ) (M ⊙ (81 • M ) ◦ ) (M ⊙ (33 • M Ref 7 7 7.6E7 1.9E7 ... 9 9 3.6E7 3.1E6 ... 4 7 2.3E8 8.8E7 ... 3 11 2.4E9 6.2E8 ... 4 9 3.5E8 1.2E8 ... 0 9 4.3E8 8.8E7 ... 1 9 2.7E8 9.3E7 ... 3 7 4.9E8 1.1E8 ... 6 7 2.3E7 4.5E6 ... 2 7 4.8E6 8.4E5 ... 3 7 3.2E8 1.1E8 ... 5 9 3.9E7 1.7E7 ... 9 9 8.3E7 4.0E7 ... 5 9 2.1E8 4.0E7 ... 7 9 1.3E7 3.1E6 ... 8 9 3.5E7 9.0E6 ... 9 9 2.2E8 6.1E7 ... 1 9 7.5E7 1.4E7 ... 4 7 4.7E7 5.2E6 ... 0 9 6.9E6 3.2E6 ... 8 7 1.2E8 3.6E7 ... 8 9 1.6E7 4.9E6 ... 2 7 6.3E7 1.7E7 ... 0 7 2.6E6 3.7E5 ... 0 9 1.2E7 3.2E6 ... 3 9 4.2E7 1.1E7 ... 1 9 1.4E7 6.3E6 ... 1 9 3.6E7 9.3E6 ... 8 9 4.5E7 1.4E7 ... 2 9 6.0E6 1.8E6 ... 1 7 3.2E7 7.9E6 ... 1 9 3.7E7 9.1E6 ... 0 7 2.2E7 1.3E6 ... 1 9 2.2E7 6.0E6 ... 3 7 1.0E7 1.5E6 ... 5 9 6.6E6 2.0E6 ... 9 9 9.0E7 1.8E7 ... 8 7 4.7E7 1.2E7 ... 9 6 5.0E6 1.3E6 ...... 2 9 2.1E6 4.0E5 ... ) (M ...... 85 14 3.0E8 5.7E7 ... 5* 13 1.6E7 4.1E6 ... 9* 10 3.4E8 8.8E7 ... . 28 12 3.9E8 9.3E7 ...... 1 2 7 4 3 8 4 5 4 5 5 4 6 6 4 5 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 4 6 3 1 8 30 12 15 6.5E8 1.2E8 ... 2 22 14 25 17 13 13 14 11 13* 8 6.3E8 2.3E8 ... 13* 8 1.7E8 4.9E7 ... 59* 8 1.7E9 4.0E8 ... − ± 17 17 18 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± c ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 0 V 5 9 9 1 5 7 9 3 5 1 8 4 5 9 6 0 5 4 8 2 7 9 4 4 8 0 3 1 1 0 ± ± . ± 5 1 5 4 0 7 4 6 4 0 ...... Ref ) (kms i ◦ 9 28 2 ...... 5.5E7 1.2E7 ... 2 57 5 137 0 87 5 120 6 61 5 ...... 4.8E8 7.2E7 ... 2 62 2 145 6 48 5 211 0 38 5 176 5 28 5 ...... 1.8E9 6.4E8 ... 8 61 2 277 9 62 5 153 8 60 5 245 0 2 5 ...... 6.0E8 1.1E8 ... 7 65 2 280 6 26 2 191 2 50 2 ...... 2.1E8 3.1E7 ... 2 62 5 253 8 22 5 ...... 3.5E8 2.1E8 ... 3 38 2 ...... 2.3E8 1.0E8 ... 6 44 2 223 2 51 2 251 9 53 2 ...... 5.8E8 3.0E7 ... 0 51 2 415 9 40 2 236 5 57 2 ...... 6.6E8 2.8E8 ... 5 41 2 180 2 45 2 ...... 1.6E8 4.4E7 ... 2 54 5 ...... 1.1E9 2.0E8 ... 9 42 2 240 7 32 2 ...... 1.2E9 2.7E8 ... 2 ...... 569 6 47 2 240 1 40 2 ...... 5.2E8 1.2E8 ... 0 72 5 257 8 44 2 238 3 62 5 256 7 83 5 357 7 ...... 341 9 39 2 ...... 3.4E7 6.8E6 ... 9 37 5 ...... 7.1E7 1.8E7 ... 0 82 5 ...... 1.6E8 3.2E7 ... 0 61 5 ...... 5.1E8 1.2E8 ... 6 43 5 175 1 ...... 416 8 30 5 204 7 67 5 ...... 1.9E8 3.7E7 ... 4 87 5 ...... 1.8E8 3.4E7 ... 9 63 2 207 4 66 5 201 1 49 2 205 6 43 2 136 2 82 2 189 0 15 2 ...... 8.6E8 1.8E8 ... 4 39 2 ...... 4.3E7 6.1E6 ... 4 32 2 230 8 35 2 ...... 2.9E7 2.4E7 ... 1 50 2 149 8 58 2 127 7 43 5 182 1 64 2 185 8 12 2 185 ...... 4 54 2 83 6 38 2 150 6 33 2 211 9 55 5 112 0 60 5 ...... 2.4E6 3.2E5 ... 8 54 2 133 0 31 5 161 8 71 2 162 5 68 5 168 2 70 2 149 8 18 2 248 ) ( ...... 1 7 1 8 2 8 6 8 7 5 3 7 2 5 5 0 4 4 7 6 4 12 11 24 48 9 12 14 2 13 10 15 14 3 2 17 3 2 2 3 13 17 7 25 12 15 18 13 7 10 11 22 38 28 22 18 18 11 18 16 27 11 17 4 12 11 24 15 24 18 12 23 from B09 − ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± e ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± σ • 2 2 9 4 3 9 8 8 2 6 5 5 2 8 5 3 3 0 4 4 3 9 0 1 7 8 0 7 2 3 4 1 5 8 4 7 4 7 5 2 2 4 4 1 5 8 6 1 6 7 3 4 2 0 6 5 3 2 3 8 4 9 0 ...... 9 8 1 4 4 4 0 1 ...... M 59 64 22 64 72 136 78 126 97 168 99 70 79 198 32 199 55 105 51 102 99 123 83 97 66 109 61 195 40 174 63 143 23 143 36 233 84 140 66 108 44 144 48 169 67 259 93 106 93 83 96 83 06 232 29 85 29 156 11 201 28 67 47 78 81 124 00 85 06 163 71 128 27 210 88 97 37 96 10 105 69 210 03 167 28 105 74 95 19 123 79 207 37 56 09 211 03 95 14 94 78 297 81 82 36 217 97 116 09 154 62 201 58 222 49 178 24 245 86 171 09 191 75 127 17 232 56 125 19 191 33 238 09 313 91 108 22 185 70 91 97 65 ...... 0 B 19 21 18 20 20 20 20 21 20 18 19 19 21 20 20 20 21 20 22 21 20 20 20 19 20 18 20 18 19 19 16 19 20 20 20 20 21 20 20 20 20 21 20 19 20 20 19 21 20 21 20 18 21 19 20 20 22 21 21 20 20 20 22 20 21 21 22 19 20 20 21 M − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − Upper limits on Ref. Table 1: Properties of the galaxies of the Sample A D (Mpc) (mag) (km s L1.9 19.04 2 S2* 29.12 2 pec S2/T2: 12.51 2 : L1.9 14.09 3 (s): ... 49.65 2 + (s) L1.9 14.84 3 : ... 59.17 2 (r) T2 18.20 2 − 0 − − (r)? T2 12.79 3 : ... 72.33 2 : ... 63.65 2 + 0 − )SBab(rs) S2* 32.29 2 )SABb(rs) S2* 47.04 2 )SBa(rs): S2* 50.59 2 : L1.9 57.68 2 ′ ′ ′ − − − + (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) Galaxy Morph. T. Spec. Cl. NGC 5347 (R NGC 5427 SAc(s)pec S2* 36.31 2 NGC 5283 S0? S2* 34.53 2 NGC 5248 SABbc(rs) H 17.92 2 NGC 5252 S0 S1.9* 89.32 2 NGC 5194 SAbc(s) pec S2 7.93 2 NGC 5005 SABbc(rs) L1.9 14.65 2 NGC 5127 E pec ... 62.53 2 NGC 4826 (R)SAab(rs) T2 7.00 3 NGC 4800 SAb(rs) H 12.51 2 NGC 4698 SAab(s) S2 16.43 2 NGC 4736 (R)SAab(r) L2 4.85 3 NGC 4579 SABb(rs) S1.9/L 22.96 2 NGC 4526 SAB0(s): H 15.77 3 NGC 4636 E0-1 L1.9 13.72 3 NGC 4548 SBb(rs) L2 17.92 3 NGC 4507 (R NGC 4552 E0-1 T2: 14.37 3 NGC 4501 SAb(rs) S2 32.29 2 NGC 4450 SAab(s) L1.9 28.28 2 NGC 4429 SA0 NGC 4477 SB0(s):? S2 20.81 2 NGC 4335 E ... 59.08 2 NGC 4314 SBa(rs) L2 15.49 2 NGC 4321 SABbc(s) T2 14.19 4 NGC 4245 SB0/a(r): H 14.56 2 NGC 4278 E1-2 L1.9 15.03 3 NGC 4150 SA0 NGC 4203 SAB0 NGC 4143 SAB0 NGC 4212 SAc: H 3.17 2 NGC 3982 SABb(r): S1.9 15.87 2 NGC 3992 SBbc(rs) T2: 15.31 2 NGC 4088 SABbc(rs) H 11.85 2 NGC 4036 S0 NGC 3953 SBbc(r) T2 15.40 2 NGC 3862 E ... 84.56 2 NGC 3627 SABb(s) T2/S2 9.43 4 NGC 3642 SAbc(r): L1.9 21.65 2 NGC 3675 SAb(s) T2 12.41 2 NGC 3801 S0? ... 46.29 2 NGC 3393 (R NGC 3368 SABab(rs) L2 9.71 3 NGC 3351 SBb(r) H 9.33 4 NGC 3081 (R)SAB0/a(r) S2* 33.51 2 NGC 3078 E2-3 ... 32.85 3 NGC 3021 SAbc(rs) ... 22.40 2 NGC 2911 SA0(s): pec L2 43.49 2 NGC 2964 SABbc(r): H 19.69 2 NGC 2903 SABbc(rs) H 10.45 2 NGC 2892 E+ pec: .. 86.24 2 NGC 2685 (R)SB0 NGC 2329 S0 NGC 2273 SBa(r): S2 23.33 2 NGC 2179 SA0/a(s) ... 35.84 2 NGC 2110 SAB0 NGC 1961 SABc(rs) L2 48.63 2 NGC 1667 SAB(r)c S2 56.09 2 NGC 1497 S0 ... 75.32 2 NGC 1358 SAB0/a(r) S2 48.16 2 NGC 1052 E4 L1.9 18.11 3 NGC 788 SA0/a(s) S1/S2* 47.88 2 NGC 741 E0: ... 65.71 2 NGC 613 SBbc(rs) H* 15.40 2 NGC 541 S0 NGC 383 SA0 NGC 315 E NGC 289 SBbc(rs) ... 17.08 2 NGC 193 SAB0 IC 3639 SBbc(rs): S2* 44.80 2 IC 342 SABcd(rs) H 3.73 1 SMBH mass and galaxy properties 23 ) • ⊙ M ) ◦ ) (M ⊙ (81 • M ) ◦ ) (M ⊙ (33 • M Ref. 4 7 8.3E7 3.6E7 ... 0 9 4.0E8 1.2E8 ... 0 9 2.1E8 4.8E7 ... 9 9 ...... 8.0E6 1 7 1.3E7 3.5E6 ... 5 7 7.7E7 1.7E7 ... 1 9 1.6E8 6.9E7 ... 4 9 1.3E7 5.5E6 ... 0 7 2.2E7 8.8E6 ... 9 7 3.1E7 4.4E6 ... 8 9 7.9E6 2.2E6 ... 5 9 2.2E8 5.8E7 ... 8 7 ...... 6.4E6 9 7 4.4E7 2.9E6 ... 8 7 ...... 4.2E7 . . . . ) (M ...... 1 9 5 4 5 2 2 2 7 3 3 3 17* 8 ...... 1.1E9 23 16 18 17 32* 8 8.1E8 1.8E8 ... − ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± c ± ± ± ± ± V 4 3 6 3 9 3 8 3 3 1 2 7 0 7 0 7 ...... Ref. ) (kms i ◦ 6 5 2 ...... 2.3E9 2.1E8 ... 3 32 2 ...... 2.8E9 3.6E8 ... 6 5 2 ...... 4.6E8 1.9E8 ... 9 14 2 225 6 37 5 401 6 28 2 169 2 65 2 ...... 1.4E9 3.4E8 ... 4 60 2 205 9 59 5 ...... 1.2E9 2.4E8 ... 1 75 2 244 9 45 2 341 9 55 5 203 ...... 8 39 2 147 8 35 2 241 7 51 2 165 3 37 2 112 0 76 2 117 0 30 2 155 ) ( ...... 1 4 5 9 56 2 248 7 51 2 207 1 17 34 24 5 13 10 15 36 9 4 9 8 40 4 28 2 255 24 11 71 2 ...... 4.9E9 1 4 40 2 158 − from G09 ± ± ± ± ± e ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± σ 8 5 1 • 2 5 5 9 3 5 7 0 1 8 5 8 2 4 6 ...... M Table 1 – Continued 19 258 70 183 28 295 21 64 47 106 99 232 34 112 21 115 45 95 32 404 50 211 71 86 22 84 91 185 88 54 54 150 46 143 37 193 84 88 11 89 25 83 34 260 14 233 ...... 0 B 20 20 21 20 20 20 20 21 20 20 20 20 20 16 18 19 20 21 19 21 20 21 22 M − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − Upper limits on Ref. D (Mpc) (mag) (km s (rs): S2* 59.92 2 + (s): ... 26.13 3 : ... 60.11 2 − − (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) Galaxy Morph. T. Spec. Cl. UGC 12064 S0 UGC 7115 E ... 88.20 2 UGC 1841 E ... 74.95 2 UGC 1395 SAb(rs) S1.9* 60.85 2 UGC 1214 (R)SAB0 NGC 7626 E pec: L2:: 38.08 2 NGC 7682 SBab(r) S2* 59.27 2 NGC 7331 SAb(s) T2 12.23 3 NGC 6951 SABbc(rs) S2 15.96 2 NGC 6861 SA0 NGC 6500 SAab: L2 36.49 2 NGC 6300 SBb(rs) S2* 14.19 2 NGC 5921 SB(r)bc L 20.49 2 NGC 4486B E1 ... 17.0 G09 NGC 5879 SAbc(rs):? T2/L2 10.55 2 NGC 4435 SB0 T2/H: 17.0 G09 NGC 5695 S? S2* 54.60 2 NGC 5728 SABa(r): S2* 37.61 2 NGC 4041 S(rs)bc H 20.9 G09 NGC 5643 SABc(rs) S2* 17.36 2 NGC 3310 SB(r)bc H 17.4 G09 NGC 5490 E ... 65.24 2 Abell 2052 E ... 151.1 G09 24 A. Beifiori et al. . ess of upper • M ble in literature . Col.(5): References upper limit of G09 and • derived from the measured M e ghly uncertain classifications r nucleus, L = LINER, S = Seyfert , T = arent axial ratio adopted to calculate the erence frame of the microwave background H ii (7) HyperLeda, (8) Kronawitter et al. (2000), (9) re H = y B09 has been corrected adopting the effective radius and adopted distance. Col.(14): of the stellar component within ASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED). Col.(4): distance ◦ mponent. Col.(11): References for Col.(10). Col.(12): σ 4), (14) Young et al. (2008), (15) Morse et al. (1998). this paper) or the isophotal axial ratio at a surface brightn = 81 i line-width measurements or gas resolved kinematics availa H i upper limits of G09 we adopted the distances from their paper • M 1 and 2 denotes various intermediate types; uncertain and hi upper limit of B09 for . For 1 • − M Mpc 1 the weighted mean recessional velocity corrected to the ref wing Paturel et al. (1997)). Col.(9): References for the app − 3K V man et al. (2001), (5) this paper, (6) Pizzella et al. (2005), = 70 km s 0 3. Col.(3): Nuclear spectral class from Ho et al. (1997), whe (RC3) with the adopted distance. Col.(7): Central H 0 T B wing Jørgensen et al. (1995). The value of UGC 1841 reported b siev (2004), (12) Hota et al. (2009), (13) Quillen et al. (199 nuclear spectral class of galaxies marked with * is from the N with and e we obtained from lues marked with * are from dynamical models of the stellar co alaxies derived from either the fitted disc axial ratio (from and adopted distance Col.(13): 0 ◦ . The circular velocities were derived from either /H 3K = 33 V i = D magnitude derived from B ), 1 = Seyfert 1, 2 = Seyfert 2, and a fractional number between H ii (from RC3) and the intrinsic disc axial ratio (derived follo 2 − — (1) Tully (1988), (2) RC3, (3) Tonry et al. (2001), (4) Freed — Col.(1): Galaxy name. Col.(2): Morphological type from RC = 25 mag arcsec B inclination given in Col.(8). Col.(10): Circular velocity corrected according to the adopted inclination. Only the va Ho (2007), (10) Binney et al. (1990), (11) Sil’chenko & Afana µ limit of B09 for a Keplerian disc model assuming adopted distance. References. radiation given in RC3. These were derived as for Col.(4). Col.(6): Absolute corrected All the distances were taken from the literature except thos are followed by a single and double colon, respectively. The values taken fromby the Donzelli same et sources al. as (2007). B09 Col.(8): and Inclination corrected of follo the disc g Notes. transition object (LINER/ SMBH mass and galaxy properties 25 V m tal ation. (10): Circular (from RC3) and the 2 − ) ⊙ ghly uncertain classifications from G09. Col.(8): Inclination (low,high) e • r M = 25 mag arcsec nucleus, L = LINER, S = Seyfert , T = Ref. B µ H ii 0 5 4.1E6(3.5,4.7) 5 3 4.3E7(3.8,4.7) 9 3 2.4E8(0.6,4.5) 7 8 7.0E7(3.2,8.3) 9 3 1.7E6(1.4,2.1) 0 3 8.6E6(8.3,8.9) 0 3 1.5E8(1.2,2.4) 0 3 8.0E7(6.9,10.0) 8 3 7.1E7(3.6,14) 8 8 4.7E7(0.9,8.5) 8 8 1.5E7(0.7,2) 2 3 3.78E7(3.77,3.79) 4 8 8.4E7(5.9,12) 4 3 5.7E8(1.7,11) 2 8 5.5E7(4.4,7.1) . . . . ) (M ...... 8* 4 2.8E9(1.6,3.9) . 1 5 5 6 7 1 3 4 5 5 9 3 20 20 26 16 46* 7 1.3E9(0.6,1.8) 31* 6 4.6E7(4.1,5.1) 23* 7 1.2E8(0.6,2) 31* 7 1.5E9(0.9,2.6) 38* 7 3.6E9(2.6,4.6) 10 * 9 9.6E8(6.7,15) 43 * 10 2.1E8(1.4,3.2) − 27 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± c ± ± ± ± re H = ± ± ± ± ± V ± ± 0 2 2 9 7 4 9 4 9 7 4 ± 0 2 3 3 ...... iger (2005), (5) Baes et al. (2003), (6) Debattista et al. . . . . ace brightness of Col.(4): Distance from G09. Col.(5): Absolute corrected to .(12): Mass (and confidence interval) of the SMBH derived fro ble in literature corrected according to the adopted inclin Ref. ) (kms i adopted to calculate the inclination given in Col.(8). Col. ◦ ispersion of the stellar component within ) ( 1 8 78 1 244 7 10 2 219 9 57 1 191 5 72 1 128 7 65 2 215 8 ...... 1.6E7(0.6,2.5) 7 ...... 1.1E8(1.0,2.2) 7 77 2 ...... 1.8E7(1.5,1.9) 9 57 2 191 9 ...... 2.1E8(1.7,2.8) 8 ...... 7.4E7(6.0,8.8) 9 ...... 1.3E8(0.4,1.8) 5 ...... 1.3E7(0.9,1.8) 8 ...... 6.9E7(5.9,7.3) 6 54 2 154 8 ...... 2.0E8(1.8,2.2) 7 46 1 325 9 81 2 ...... 1.8E8(1.4,2.1) 14 ...... 3.9E9(3.3,4.3) 16 ...... 5.2E8(4.4,6.0) 18 69 1 115 3 57 2 ...... 3.1E6(2.5,3.7) 20 ...... 180 17 71 1 278 10 73 2 ...... 4.2E7(3.4,7.0) 10 88 1 270 10 50 1 153 16 ...... 424 12 51 1 125 11 88 1 315 10 ...... 2.2E8(1.7,2.7) 10 ...... 259 10 ...... 3.4E8(2.8,4.9) 11 ...... 1.2E8(0.8,1.6) 15 46 1 462 10 71 1 202 15 ...... 5.5E8(4.3,6.6) 12 ...... 3.2E8(0.8,4.1) 11 ...... 3.6E8(2.4,5.6) 14 ...... 410 18 ...... 507 12 75 1 389 19 ...... 2.1E9(1.5,2.6) 11 ...... 8.0E8(4.7,13) 13 71 1 ...... 4.0E8(2.4,6.8) 11 ...... 2.9E8(1.2,3.4) 3 ...... 4.1E6(2.4,5.3) 19 72 1 121 14 ...... 6.0E8(4.0,8.0) − ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± e ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± σ 1 and 2 denotes various intermediate types; uncertain and hi 15 288 15 322 05 75 15 340 13 209 28 205 10 337 13 175 05 230 10 145 03 206 22 143 20 213 10 229 10 182 20 180 06 315 13 242 05 296 04 167 04 190 04 375 05 111 32 162 15 240 05 385 11 177 08 150 13 222 13 183 13 234 11 67 ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± bulge 31 27 83 57 24 61 13 62 18 11 10 93 80 62 05 83 72 67 45 06 14 92 70 60 44 65 29 82 04 26 77 72 0 V, ...... M 23 23 16 22 21 20 22 19 21 20 21 19 21 21 21 19 22 20 22 21 21 22 18 19 22 22 21 21 22 21 19 18 − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − 31 27 36 ... 158 83 57 84 ... 160 24 17 ... 151 26 34 ... 218 90 ... 189 13 97 ... 115 51 ... 143 62 73 ... 133 25 96 ... 205 11 10 50 88 62 05 32 ... 305 31 ... 115 28 72 67 84 ... 225 45 06 14 92 70 10 52 70 ... 136 65 29 82 04 26 77 80 51 ... 156 ...... 0 V,T 23 23 17 16 22 21 21 22 21 21 18 22 20 21 19 20 21 20 20 21 20 21 21 21 20 21 20 22 20 18 22 21 21 22 18 20 22 20 22 21 21 22 21 19 19 21 − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − 9. Col.(3): Nuclear spectral class from Ho et al. (1997), whe Table 2: Properties of the galaxies of Sample B — (1) RC3, (2) this paper, (3) Ho (2007), (4) Samurovi´c& Danz D M stellar component. Col.(11): References for Col.(10). Col (Mpc) (mag) (mag) (km s line-width measurements or gas resolved kinematics availa ratio (from this paper) or the isophotal axial ratio at a surf nuclear spectral class of galaxies marked with * is from NED. 03), (9) Bender et al. (1994), (10) Coccato et al. (2009). H i . (1997)). Col.(9): References for the apparent axial ratio References. magnitude of the bulge from G09. Col.(7): Central velocity d V ), 1 = Seyfert 1, 2 = Seyfert 2, and a fractional number between H ii (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) Galaxy Morph. T. Spec. Cl. Abell 1836-BCG E ... 157.5 Abell 3565-BCG E ... 54.4 MW Sbc ... 0.008 ...... 105 Circinus Sb S2* 4.0 NGC 221 E2 ... 0.86 IC 1459 E4 L* 30.9 NGC 224 Sb L 0.80 NGC 821 E4 ... 25.5 NGC 1068 Sb S1.8 15.4 NGC 1023 SB0 ... 12.1 NGC 1300 SBbc ... 20.1 NGC 1399 E1 ... 21.1 NGC 2748 Sc H 24.9 NGC 2778 E2 ... 24.2 NGC 3227 SBa S1.5 17.0 NGC 3115 S0 ... 10.2 NGC 3245 S0 T2: 22.1 NGC 2787 SB0 L1.9 7.9 NGC 3031 Sb S1.5 4.1 NGC 3377 E6 ... 11.7 NGC 3379 E0 L2/T2:: 11.7 NGC 3384 SB0 ... 11.7 NGC 3585 S0 ... 21.2 NGC 3607 E1 L2 19.9 NGC 3608 E1 L2/S2: 23.0 NGC 3998 S0 L1.9 14.9 NGC 4026 S0 ... 15.6 NGC 4261 E2 L2 33.4 NGC 4258 SABbc S1.9 7.2 NGC 4291 E2 ... 25.0 NGC 4342 S0 ... 18.0 NGC 4374 E1 L2 17.0 NGC 4459 E2 H/L 17.0 NGC 4473 E4 ... 17.0 NGC 4486 E1 L2 17.0 NGC 4486A E2 ... 17.0 NGC 4564 S0 ... 17.0 NGC 4594 Sa L2 10.3 NGC 4596 SB0 L2:: 18.0 NGC 4649 E2 ... 16.5 NGC 4697 E6 ... 12.4 NGC 5077 E3 L1.9 44.9 NGC 5128 S0/E S2 4.4 NGC 5576 E3 ... 27.1 NGC 5845 E3 ... 28.7 NGC 7457 S0 ... 14.0 NGC 7052 E3 ... 70.9 ...... 266 NGC 6251 E1 S2 106.0 ...... 290 NGC 7582 SBab S2 22.3 — Col.(1): Galaxy name. Col.(2): Morphological type from G0 are followed by a single and double colon, respectively. The intrinsic disc axial ratiovelocity. (derived The following circular Paturel velocities et were al derived from either of the disc galaxies derived from either the fitted disc axial Only the values marked with * are from dynamical models of the Notes. transition object (LINER/ magnitude from G09. Col.(6): Absolute corrected (2002), (7) Kronawitter et al. (2000), (8) Paturel et al. (20 modelling based on the resolved kinematics from G09. 26 A. Beifiori et al. 28 C ) gal ′′ , e r ) ( 2 − gal , e µ 5 . ) (mag arcsec ′′ 24 from B09 from G09 R • • M M uthally-averaged light profiles mea- 5 . 24 ǫ m ) (mag) ( ◦ PA Galaxies from Sample B 10 138.61 0.16 9.60 165.17 20.72 66.22 3.58 12 83.50 0.45 12.04 68.31 20.83 17.92 4.64 08 84.80 0.36 8.12 328.36 20.91 115.51 3.18 09 32.04 0.53 8.81 207.82 19.73 51.96 3.97 12 165.10 0.07 11.98 59.64 21.34 30.66 3.46 12 25.55 0.29 11.58 82.72 21.41 23.31 4.63 08 159.61 0.49 8.13 299.77 19.93 77.97 3.23 08 2.81 0.47 7.79 383.92 20.04 63.14 6.64 11 92.15 0.22 11.23 84.70 20.67 16.69 5.50 11 71.94 0.07 10.73 75.43 19.81 20.53 3.63 10 111.10 0.11 9.89 134.68 20.31 35.10 4.47 12 151.27 0.26 12.00 57.14 20.48 14.98 4.07 09 144.03 0.20 8.68 264.19 20.94 72.16 4.43 09 161.29 0.58 8.80 285.70 20.30 67.00 4.47 11 122.79 0.61 10.67 125.47 20.36 26.91 4.09 09 177.58 0.25 8.68 251.94 20.76 77.27 4.23 11 5.53 0.14 10.72 104.39 21.05 27.18 4.52 10 147.44 0.25 10.44 160.99 22.27 61.04 3.86 09 142.26 0.13 9.07 202.90 20.07 34.11 5.37 13 112.82 0.08 13.05 38.71 21.56 18.01 3.15 09 123.32 0.20 9.28 217.25 21.52 80.08 3.82 12 96.41 0.28 12.28 66.21 21.95 17.77 6.33 09 159.75 0.70 8.54 337.08 19.75 45.57 5.23 09 131.35 0.48 9.07 236.04 20.60 73.04 3.23 10 19.31 0.14 9.61 142.18 20.51 34.81 4.39 09 93.86 0.43 9.17 218.24 20.74 58.04 4.08 10 141.62 0.19 9.71 151.82 19.87 28.98 4.77 09 178.12 0.56 8.96 231.68 20.19 57.68 4.24 09 79.18 0.16 8.71 261.30 21.08 114.94 2.58 09 34.26 0.64 9.49 182.01 20.54 68.32 2.52 12 67.00 0.26 11.71 59.57 20.49 18.22 3.15 11 120.07 0.22 11.37 83.81 20.75 17.63 5.32 10 178.77 0.12 9.75 152.44 20.55 59.58 4.32 10 82.54 0.09 9.80 122.53 20.43 29.20 4.89 10 121.10 0.32 10.23 88.69 19.17 17.19 4.64 10 4.46 0.51 9.72 140.08 19.33 29.33 4.43 09 79.91 0.39 9.04 239.51 20.45 73.02 3.54 08 93.08 0.52 8.01 359.49 20.21 79.79 3.56 08 54.50 0.46 8.10 308.12 20.17 94.85 1.89 10 3.71 0.52 10.30 141.32 20.21 31.26 5.10 09 53.47 0.09 9.45 156.47 19.90 26.21 4.89 10 13.46 0.34 10.40 99.19 20.38 39.46 2.68 11 123.60 0.33 10.89 78.23 20.00 17.19 4.78 09 17.60 0.51 9.02 239.99 21.29 90.88 2.80 09 69.23 0.52 9.22 204.72 20.88 62.31 3.72 11 144.11 0.39 11.07 112.49 21.17 30.81 4.49 11 107.72 0.13 11.14 95.44 21.44 28.22 4.54 09 104.57 0.19 8.51 239.62 19.94 57.12 4.30 11 129.46 0.35 10.75 138.18 21.96 42.13 4.90 12 164.31 0.18 11.82 72.27 21.79 21.44 5.28 11 97.00 0.20 10.52 112.39 20.71 33.72 4.38 11 89.38 0.13 11.07 65.24 19.93 18.09 2.33 11 121.80 0.34 11.40 116.84 22.73 42.87 5.94 09 64.60 0.10 9.06 199.27 20.79 62.43 4.16 11 162.05 0.48 10.53 102.10 20.01 31.16 2.94 08 5.51 0.30 8.17 329.45 19.67 44.48 5.63 12 53.05 0.36 11.7412 104.37 107.86 0.22 23.17 12.17 63.47 52.44 4.37 21.57 17.61 4.80 11 142.43 0.37 11.42 59.09 19.80 19.69 3.20 10 76.36 0.24 9.9512 111.64 13.21 0.19 19.48 11.77 53.45 23.96 4.73 20.19 12.02 4.57 11 78.70 0.04 10.5610 107.72 169.09 0.28 19.66 10.39 139.90 16.30 4.16 21.15 35.01 5.03 13 175.94 0.29 12.79 28.21 18.17 2.99 4.47 11 12.03 0.13 10.63 100.88 20.47 21.22 3.90 11 8.11 0.25 10.74 142.60 22.84 64.76 5.33 ...... i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± tot 56 93 11 78 91 46 12 55 15 70 84 95 63 75 62 61 69 27 02 01 20 04 50 05 58 13 65 93 67 47 69 27 70 77 21 69 97 98 08 22 40 38 86 98 19 97 96 47 63 71 47 05 14 03 50 12 58 03 40 93 74 48 33 75 57 55 m ...... Galaxies from Sample A: upper limit on Galaxies from Sample A: upper limit on -band SDSS images. i 13 11 13 11 11 9 13 11 12 11 09 8 10 8 12 10 13 11 09 8 09 7 11 10 11 9 12 10 11 10 10 8 14 13 10 8 10 8 14 12 10 9 10 9 10 8 10 9 11 9 12 11 10 9 13 11 11 10 11 10 11 9 10 8 10 8 11 10 12 10 10 9 12 10 12 10 12 10 13 11 11 9 12 10 11 9 11 9 12 11 13 11 10 8 09 7 11 10 09 8 13 11 14 12 11 9 10 8 10 9 10 8 12 11 13 11 11 10 11 10 10 9 14 12 12 10 09 8 12 10 11 9 ...... g 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 and , ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± g tot (mag) (mag) ( 83 87 51 56 27 67 74 68 99 84 24 30 94 56 03 73 66 61 64 15 15 32 46 81 73 23 13 32 33 15 80 95 53 19 85 15 05 73 73 77 81 55 93 74 75 17 06 76 30 92 47 24 52 83 15 54 18 85 83 10 06 74 42 97 35 01 m ...... Table 3: Structural parameters of the galaxies from the azim sured in (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Galaxy NGC 5252 12 NGC 5347 12 NGC 5248 10 NGC 5127 12 NGC 5490 12 NGC 5194 8 NGC 5005 9 NGC 4800 11 NGC 5695 12 NGC 4826 8 NGC 4736 8 NGC 5879 11 NGC 4698 10 NGC 7626 11 NGC 5921 11 NGC 4636 9 UGC 1395 13 NGC 7331 9 NGC 4579 9 UGC 7115 13 NGC 4552 10 NGC 4548 10 NGC 4526 9 NGC 4501 9 NGC 4477 10 NGC 1667 12 NGC 4450 10 NGC 4335 12 NGC 4143 11 NGC 2685 11 NGC 1052 10 NGC 4429 9 NGC 4321 9 NGC 4212 11 NGC 4150 11 NGC 4088 10 NGC 3801 12 NGC 3642 11 NGC 2911 11 NGC 2892 12 NGC 4314 10 NGC 4245 11 NGC 4203 10 NGC 4036 10 NGC 3982 11 NGC 3862 12 NGC 3675 10 NGC 3627 8 NGC 2964 11 NGC 2903 8 NGC 741 11 Abell 2052 12 Abell 1836 13 NGC 4278 10 NGC 3992 9 NGC 3953 10 NGC 3368 9 NGC 3021 12 NGC 2778 12 NGC 3310 10 NGC 0821 11 NGC 3351 10 NGC 4486B 13 NGC 4041 11 NGC 1068 8 NGC 4435 11 SMBH mass and galaxy properties 27 9): e isophotes. ively. 28 C corrected for Galactic extinction, K-correction, 2 ) gal − ′′ , e r ) ( . Col.(8): Effective surface brightness of the galaxy. Col.( 2 2 − − gal , e µ -band magnitude of the galaxy. Col.(4): Position angle of th i level of 24.5 mag arcsec 5 mag arcsec . 5 . ) (mag arcsec ′′ 24 = 24 R i µ 5 . 24 are the radii that enclose 80% and 20% of total light, respect 20 r ǫ m and 80 r ) (mag) ( ◦ Table 3 – Continued PA ) where 10 6.18 0.46 9.76 202.00 21.43 49.36 6.82 11 140.39 0.22 11.48 50.59 17.68 4.34 4.91 09 119.54 0.25 8.57 253.13 20.24 59.72 4.36 08 167.95 0.21 8.01 322.54 20.14 67.47 4.80 08 139.27 0.16 8.06 301.70 20.20 68.38 4.46 10 161.17 0.24 9.61 164.73 20.73 56.20 4.50 11 170.01 0.34 11.04 111.52 18.32 5.82 4.44 09 178.13 0.35 9.33 192.68 20.00 34.79 5.49 10 41.86 0.41 10.18 113.23 19.45 22.41 5.14 09 176.05 0.25 9.34 200.03 20.66 40.99 5.24 08 175.20 0.06 8.42 258.44 20.38 53.79 4.89 09 99.42 0.32 9.36 236.04 21.38 56.63 5.78 11 102.67 0.26 11.34 57.41 18.06 7.59 5.91 08 118.60 0.45 7.97 517.97 20.97 135.85 4.13 10 90.02 0.63 9.70 138.74 18.88 21.11 5.50 10 129.80 0.19 9.73 128.72 19.67 20.40 5.47 09 136.66 0.10 9.24 183.12 20.22 36.42 4.79 10 15.55 0.14 10.19 123.25 20.48 28.42 4.87 09 28.09 0.56 8.88 227.66 20.14 37.69 5.74 09 4.39 0.11 8.54 246.37 20.00 56.99 5.26 10 2.80 0.11 9.51 201.63 21.23 59.52 5.00 10 78.83 0.38 10.05 127.01 19.95 26.68 5.15 10 106.11 0.47 9.91 162.41 20.77 59.08 3.30 07 86.85 0.42 6.79 396.00 19.40 94.61 4.09 20 ...... i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , /r ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± tot 80 r 52 45 53 96 03 56 20 27 15 23 37 15 26 94 69 68 18 13 85 49 34 97 84 76 m ...... = 5log( 13 11 11 9 10 8 12 11 09 7 11 10 09 8 11 9 10 9 11 9 13 11 10 8 11 9 09 7 11 9 11 10 11 9 10 9 10 8 10 8 11 9 11 9 11 9 08 6 ...... g 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , -band magnitude of the galaxy. Col.(3): Total extrapolated C g ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± tot ex (mag) (mag) ( 64 61 64 11 18 21 21 63 34 45 51 56 18 63 65 23 81 32 80 67 24 03 78 76 m 7): Radius of isophote at a surface brightness level of -band magnitude within the isophote at a surface brightness ...... i d (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Galaxy NGC 5845 12 NGC 5576 10 NGC 4697 9 NGC 4486A 11 NGC 4649 9 NGC 4564 11 NGC 4486 9 NGC 4596 10 NGC 4473 10 NGC 4459 10 NGC 4342 12 NGC 4374 9 NGC 4261 10 NGC 4258 8 NGC 4026 10 NGC 3608 11 NGC 3998 10 NGC 3607 10 NGC 3384 9 NGC 3379 9 NGC 3377 10 NGC 3245 11 NGC 3227 10 NGC 3031 7 — Col.(1): Galaxy name. Col.(2): Total extrapolated Notes. and internal extinction following (Shao et al. 2007). Col.( Col.(5): Ellipticity of the isophotes. Col.(6): Integrate Effective radius of the galaxy. Col.(10): Concentration ind 28 A. Beifiori et al. 60 08 08 29 15 09 19 09 09 09 03 15 01 61 09 14 28 62 14 08 04 08 14 28 15 08 04 07 14 14 03 14 04 04 03 04 03 ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± bulge i, (mag) 04 09 67 06 04 03 12 00 17 17 11 25 40 16 99 89 56 55 56 91 00 12 83 80 49 27 34 69 95 85 98 83 94 40 38 99 65 ...... 05 14 01 12 21 13 01 11 01 10 02 9 02 10 02 10 02 10 03 11 01 14 03 10 18 12 01 14 04 10 01 7 03 11 03 9 02 12 03 10 09 12 04 11 03 12 05 11 04 10 03 10 02 10 ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 12 00 10 00 11 00 11 00 8 00 10 00 11 00 10 00 10 00 9 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ...... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 B/T m 19 11 51 06 28 47 40 44 37 32 04 30 44 04 43 56 24 67 17 28 23 40 24 37 37 26 20 ...... 25 0 10 0 07 0 04 0 09 0 10 0 09 0 01 0 01 0 17 0 42 0 21 0 55 0 00 0 37 0 02 0 17 0 11 0 50 0 38 0 60 0 28 0 15 0 14 0 23 0 23 0 35 0 ...... 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d ) ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ◦ ( PA 16 52 86 50 29 18 97 23 59 80 87 80 86 84 34 77 73 28 07 78 08 05 31 66 13 86 01 ...... 19 27 02 33 05 100 02 16 01 142 01 153 01 147 01 22 02 75 01 8 22 30 02 90 09 51 26 108 03 164 01 100 02 58 01 170 01 175 03 167 06 57 04 122 02 52 02 48 04 102 02 98 02 155 ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 63 58 48 60 69 69 38 43 53 44 75 53 95 87 85 44 58 76 48 81 65 89 64 62 91 47 54 ...... 51 0 02 0 17 0 28 0 60 0 30 0 52 0 29 0 95 0 25 0 78 0 85 0 29 0 47 0 14 0 32 0 82 0 07 0 93 0 58 0 52 0 79 0 84 0 04 0 89 0 75 0 02 0 ...... 8 9 5 3 2 2 2 8 2 9 9 0 2 2 3 6 7 4 8 13 14 10 11 13 12 12 21 ) ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± h q ′′ ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 79 68 57 59 30 58 19 24 21 79 00 64 27 11 91 58 80 55 02 ...... 79 73 51 62 94 99 77 39 ...... ) ( 2 61 10 27 50 19 45 39 11 11 83 11 53 11 58 11 53 60 18 29 41 30 42 29 34 11 52 30 51 42 20 58 12 02 78 21 60 17 14 12 48 17 19 29 48 38 14 31 29 19 24 30 80 30 34 − ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ...... µ 11 97 53 61 21 76 31 00 86 35 22 39 31 12 81 38 61 53 84 88 83 36 83 29 49 15 92 ...... wo-dimensional decomposition of the 06 01 58 19 94 17 67 19 02 24 19 87 20 04 16 19 00 19 01 91 19 14 18 68 19 00 20 93 19 03 09 19 02 16 20 04 20 36 18 02 02 45 19 87 21 15 17 12 20 35 17 52 19 01 25 18 61 20 26 19 61 20 35 19 ...... 0 0 1 1 1 0 5 0 6 6 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 4 0 0 5 25 11 16 18 25 11 13 10 13 15 10 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± b ) (mag arcsec ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ◦ ( 26 47 84 62 26 69 80 27 41 25 69 35 34 95 52 18 27 00 66 30 01 33 17 34 85 60 PA ...... 89 39 66 63 53 33 84 83 72 94 86 from B09 ...... from G09 • • M M 01 89 01 101 01 14 01 102 01 18 01 19 01 82 01 149 01 151 01 157 01 153 01 105 01 162 01 33 01 23 02 1 01 92 01 174 01 101 01 106 01 116 01 2 01 64 01 153 01 100 01 53 01 177 01 78 01 69 01 56 01 59 01 149 01 99 01 105 01 107 01 5 01 60 ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 92 90 69 41 65 69 78 95 77 70 43 75 90 94 68 85 77 85 97 79 72 65 77 88 49 76 81 00 45 74 78 67 87 86 87 79 83 ...... 52 0 11 0 47 0 57 0 07 0 05 0 26 0 07 0 19 0 18 0 07 0 13 0 15 0 08 0 06 0 34 0 20 0 22 0 41 0 10 0 17 0 11 0 19 0 09 0 23 0 20 0 09 0 30 1 01 0 20 0 06 0 26 0 13 0 10 0 07 0 06 0 11 0 ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n q ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 05 54 75 82 49 99 90 18 90 24 04 62 00 30 90 68 98 47 46 80 57 31 10 68 73 68 50 90 56 66 05 33 62 90 70 15 00 ...... 91 7 33 5 65 3 62 4 65 1 61 0 27 6 30 2 59 4 63 5 56 2 88 2 36 3 57 4 80 1 47 2 34 3 23 4 86 3 51 0 26 4 00 3 25 5 35 1 90 4 61 1 15 4 88 7 96 4 44 3 26 1 10 5 03 2 09 2 99 3 35 1 50 2 ...... 3 2 0 2 0 0 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 2 3 1 0 8 2 1 0 3 0 2 4 0 1 0 4 1 1 0 1 0 ) ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± e Galaxies from Sample A: upper limit on ′′ Galaxies from Sample A: upper limits on r 01 08 00 92 01 05 09 42 95 13 21 52 47 24 92 44 05 98 04 58 48 74 34 05 13 32 75 40 00 73 07 64 99 24 34 46 79 ...... -band SDSS images Table 4: Structurali properties of the sample galaxies from t ) ( 2 34 22 08 67 40 2 15 35 35 9 12 5 12 7 10 19 15 39 10 39 09 23 14 14 14 10 07 45 09 11 15 18 15 24 10 29 14 19 39 1 34 7 39 1 15 30 07 61 17 127 16 75 02 98 13 16 16 31 10 16 12 4 30 2 07 28 14 10 11 3 13 7 12 5 − ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ...... µ 43 69 50 13 56 94 62 49 56 77 95 22 47 61 14 27 08 37 06 94 07 87 96 56 58 13 30 82 44 10 97 27 11 09 79 49 92 ...... 22 22 22 22 20 21 22 24 20 (mag arcsec +exp. 18 +exp. 20 +exp. 16 +exp. 18 +exp. 19 +exp. 20 +exp. 18 +exp. 19 +exp. 19 +exp. 18 +exp. 20 +exp. 21 +exp. 20 +exp. 17 +exp. 20 +exp. 17 +exp. 20 +exp. 24 +exp. 21 +exp. 20 +exp. 21 +exp. 19 +exp. 17 +exp. 17 +exp. 19 +exp. 16 +exp. 18 +exp. 18 /n /n /n /n /n /n /n /n /n /n /n /n /n /n /n /n /n /n /n /n /n /n /n /n /n /n /n /n /n /n /n /n /n /n /n /n /n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) Galaxy 2D Fit Comments UGC 1395UGC 7115 no yes bad NGC 5879NGC 5921NGC 7331 noNGC 7626 no no yes bad bar bad NGC 5695 yes NGC 5252 yes NGC 4736NGC 4800NGC 4826 no no yes bar Freeman II disc NGC 5194NGC 5248 no yes bad NGC 4636 yes NGC 5347NGC 5490 no yes Freeman II disc NGC 4579 yes NGC 5005 yes NGC 4477 yes NGC 4698 yes NGC 4501NGC 4526 no yes Freeman II disc NGC 5127 yes NGC 4450 yes NGC 4548 yes NGC 4552 yes NGC 4429 yes NGC 2964 yes NGC 1052NGC 1667NGC 2685 noNGC 2892 no no yes bad bad bad NGC 3953NGC 3982 no yes bar NGC 3642NGC 3675 no yes embedded disc NGC 3801NGC 3862 no yes bad NGC 3021NGC 3351NGC 3368 noNGC 3627 no no yes bar bar bar NGC 4321NGC 4335 no yes bar NGC 2903NGC 2911 no yes bad NGC 3992 yes NGC 4314 yes NGC 4036 yes NGC 4150 yes NGC 741 yes Abell 2052 no NGC 3310NGC 4041 no yes bar NGC 4088NGC 4143 no yes Freeman II disc NGC 4203 yes NGC 4435 no bar NGC 4278 yes NGC 4212NGC 4245 no yes Freeman II disc SMBH mass and galaxy properties 29 08 09 09 18 01 14 01 03 09 01 01 08 01 01 09 01 29 03 03 24 ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± bulge i, (mag) 56 94 44 78 34 80 78 62 17 38 33 83 45 47 74 16 06 75 63 58 ...... , 02 10 01 9 04 9 05 10 02 10 04 11 01 7 01 9 22 13 ...... ments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 11 00 8 00 8 00 9 00 8 00 9 00 9 00 9 00 9 00 9 00 12 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ...... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 B/T m 48 30 78 45 40 27 33 33 54 ...... s = the light 01 0 01 0 10 0 13 0 09 0 29 0 02 0 11 0 73 0 ...... the disc major-axis. 8): Position angle of 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d ) ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ◦ ( PA 46 78 85 96 30 64 77 00 58 ...... 01 13 01 162 01 1 03 54 01 148 02 101 01 95 01 180 06 68 ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 78 67 56 78 47 50 50 99 60 ...... bulge and exponential disc; bad = inadequate 33 0 41 0 64 0 67 0 32 0 08 0 60 0 26 0 46 0 ...... 2 1 1 6 2 4 0 1 12 ) ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± h q ′′ ± 15 71 14 51 79 66 21 35 ...... 88 . omponents have been fitted with a and S´ersic exponential law ) ( 2 11 54 11 32 11 38 29 25 11 53 18 20 01 150 10 29 44 27 − tion: yes = successful fit; no = unsuccessful fit; Col.(3): Com ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± is required...... µ 03 48 64 33 57 59 79 30 92 ent in addition to the bulge and disc components; light exces ...... he bulge. Col.(7): Axial ratio of the bulge isophotes. Col.( ial ratio of the disc isophotes. Col.(12): Position angle of 04 01 01 02 31 19 58 19 13 19 01 02 01 74 19 01 65 19 01 02 75 18 01 60 18 52 18 50 21 ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 5 0 0 8 0 0 5 19 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± b ) (mag arcsec ± ◦ ( 79 86 91 21 98 90 26 32 16 96 48 34 36 97 05 76 90 24 97 PA ...... 32 . 01 50 01 63 01 13 01 177 01 7 01 14 01 3 01 37 01 175 01 67 01 45 01 38 01 144 01 6 01 137 01 100 01 4 01 79 01 91 01 140 ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table 4 – Continued b ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 66 69 82 69 85 87 57 86 79 77 84 80 84 59 70 75 85 89 72 65 ...... +exp. = the galaxy has been successfully fitted with a S´ersic /n 1 r 26 0 01 0 02 0 17 0 05 0 15 0 07 0 01 0 03 0 01 0 11 0 01 0 08 0 15 0 07 0 09 0 35 0 33 0 02 0 04 0 ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n q ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± Galaxies from Sample B 45 96 44 71 63 43 23 10 03 31 29 70 33 70 47 60 58 73 57 27 ...... al decomposition of the galaxy surface brightness distribu 72 3 12 4 61 7 70 8 00 1 01 4 71 2 06 4 72 9 19 4 73 2 22 4 56 2 87 7 51 3 35 1 37 3 51 2 49 2 69 1 llow a Freeman Type II law; embedded disc = the bulge and disc c ...... 0 0 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 2 0 0 n exponential function. A cut-off profile (e.g., Oemler 1976) ) ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± e ′′ r 06 68 21 58 88 91 60 61 19 82 65 34 31 25 52 00 73 49 02 27 ...... of the disc. Col.(10): Scale length of the disc. Col.(11): Ax bution at both small and large radii; bar = a strong bar is pres : Effective radius of the bulge. Col.(6): Shape parameter of t al magnitude of the bulge. ) ( 2 27 4 01 128 07 77 01 155 09 14 11 44 09 10 01 63 01 48 01 182 13 5 01 56 09 8 07 43 08 111 11 4 40 2 02 50 09 10 36 9 − ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ...... µ 63 82 42 23 18 49 05 63 06 20 47 14 68 41 15 45 91 75 14 01 ...... 17 21 22 23 20 21 24 21 20 23 17 (mag arcsec +exp. 18 +exp. 21 +exp. 18 +exp. 17 +exp. 17 +exp. 17 +exp. 18 +exp. 17 +exp. 21 /n /n /n /n /n /n /n /n /n /n /n /n /n /n /n /n /n /n /n /n = the galaxy has been successfully fitted with a law; S´ersic 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r /n 1 r — Col.(1): Galaxy name. Col.(2): Result of the two dimension excess measured at largeCol.(4): radii Effective can surface brightness not of be the parametrised bulge. with Col.(5) a the bulge major-axis. Col.(9): Central surface brightness Notes. respectively. But, the bulge is dominating the light contri one or two-component fit; Freeman II disc = the disc seems to fo Col.(13): Bulge-to-total luminosity ratio. Col.(14): Tot about the fit: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) Galaxy 2D Fit Comments NGC 5845 yes NGC 4697 yes NGC 5576 yes NGC 4649 yes NGC 4486NGC 4486ANGC 4564 noNGC no 4596 no yes light bad excess embedded disc NGC 4459 yes NGC 4473 yes NGC 4342NGC 4374 no yes embedded disc NGC 4026NGC 4258NGC 4261 no no yes bad bad NGC 3608 yes NGC 3998 yes NGC 3607 yes NGC 3379NGC 3384 no yes bad NGC 3377 yes NGC 3227NGC 3245 no yes bar NGC 2778NGC 3031 no yes embedded disc NGC 821 yes NGC 1068 yes NGC 4486B yes Abell 1836 yes 30 A. Beifiori et al.

Table 5. Fitting parameters and correlation coefficients for the different relations

x Sample NρP α β ǫ ǫint x0

−1 σe B 49 0.85 < 0.1% 8.19 ± 0.07 4.17 ± 0.32 0.41 ±0.06 0.36 ±0.07 200 km s A+B 143 0.69 < 0.1% 7.99 ± 0.06 4.42 ± 0.30 0.44 ±0.05 ... comparison 30 0.64 < 0.1% 7.88 ± 0.20 4.97 ± 1.22 0.52 ±0.10 ...

11 Li,bulge B 19 0.26 26% 8.60 ± 0.30 0.47 ± 0.31 0.56 ±0.10 0.58 ±0.11 10 L⊙ A+B 57 0.34 1% 8.17 ± 0.22 0.79 ± 0.24 0.81 ±0.13 ... comparison 30 0.22 24% 7.24 ± 0.65 0.45 ± 0.53 0.85 ±0.32 ...

11 Mbulge B 19 0.46 4.6% 8.25 ± 0.13 0.79 ± 0.26 0.47 ±0.06 0.46 ±0.07 10 M⊙ A+B 57 0.52 < 0.1% 7.84 ± 0.12 0.91 ± 0.16 0.61 ±0.08 ... comparison 30 0.44 1.8% 7.79 ± 0.39 1.23 ± 0.53 0.77 ±0.20 ...

n B 19 −0.1 38% 8.25 ± 0.18 0.06 ± 0.80 0.60 ±0.12 0.61 ±0.13 3 A+B 57 0.24 7.6% 7.39 ± 0.19 1.25 ± 0.60 0.93 ±0.17 ... comparison 30 0.30 11% 6.96 ± 0.36 1.84 ± 0.89 0.97 ±0.28 ...

−2 hµe,bulge i B 19 −0.0 46% 8.21 ± 0.19 1.78 ± 3.40 0.60 ±0.10 0.62 ±0.12 19 mag arcsec A+B 57 0.16 23% 7.47 ± 0.20 4.91 ± 4.00 0.96 ±0.16 ... comparison 30 0.11 53% 6.90 ± 0.44 7.31 ± 7.75 1.08 ±0.35 ...

11 Lgal B 28 0.44 2% 8.69 ± 0.22 1.14 ± 0.40 0.53 ±0.10 0.52 ±0.11 10 M⊙ A+B 90 0.34 0.15% 7.92 ± 0.23 1.33 ± 0.35 0.91 ±0.12 ... comparison 30 0.26 17% 7.41 ± 0.55 1.22 ± 0.99 1.06 ±0.21 ...

11 M⋆,gal B 28 0.51 0.59% 8.21 ± 0.10 1.43 ± 0.36 0.49 ±0.09 0.42 ±0.14 10 M⊙ A+B 90 0.43 < 0.1% 7.47 ± 0.15 1.42 ± 0.28 0.81 ±0.11 ... comparison 30 0.40 3% 7.17 ± 0.31 1.55 ± 0.75 0.88 ±0.14 ...

−1 Vc B 23 0.72 < 0.1% 7.82 ± 0.15 3.29 ± 0.61 0.54 ±0.08 0.51 ±0.09 200 km s A+B 88 0.38 < 0.1% 6.91 ± 0.16 4.02 ± 0.87 0.84 ±0.11 ... comparison 30 0.37 4.5% 6.82 ± 0.31 3.59 ± 1.57 0.84 ±0.19 ...

11 Me,gal B 24 0.55 0.3% 8.17 ± 0.13 0.83 ± 0.27 0.54 ±0.11 0.53 ±0.12 10 M⊙ A+B 51 0.49 < 0.1% 7.86 ± 0.09 1.00 ± 0.17 0.49 ±0.07 ...

11 Mdyn,gal B 6 0.24 35% 7.62 ± 0.19 0.32 ± 0.87 0.46 ±0.16 0.53 ±0.02 10 M⊙ A+B 47 0.13 36% 6.10 ± 0.39 0.55 ± 0.59 0.96 ±0.31 ...

Notes. — For the variable x a correlation of the form log(M•/M⊙) = α + β log(x/x0) is assumed for the N data points. For Samples A+B and the comparison sample, the total scatter ǫ is defined as the root-mean square deviation in log(M•/M⊙) from the fitted relation assuming no measurement errors. For sample B, the total scatter takes measurement errors in both variables into account. SMBH mass and galaxy properties 31 ⊙ ⊙ ⊙ ⊙ L L M M 0 y 11 11 11 11 5 kpc 5 kpc 5 kpc 5 kpc 5 kpc 5 kpc 10 10 10 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 − − − − − ⊙ ⊙ − ⊙ ⊙ L L M M 0 x 11 11 11 11 data points. For Samples N 0.0 200 km s 0.07 200 km s 0.05 200 km s 0.14 10 0.15 10 0.06 200 km s 0.08 10 0.07 200 km s 0.07 200km s 0.11 10 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± int ) from the fitted relation assuming zero ⊙ M 0.13 ... 0.20 ... 0.19 ... 0.10 ... 0.11 ... 0.10 ... 0.09 ... 0.26 ... 0.06 0.36 0.05 0.34 0.12 0.57 0.09 ... 0.04 ... 0.10 ... 0.11 ... 0.13 ... 0.16 0.58 0.05 0.34 0.06 0.29 0.06 0.36 0.06 0.38 0.05 0.35 0.04 ... 0.58 ... 0.04 ... 0.10 ... 0.04 ... 0.10 0.63 0.05 ... 0.04 ... / ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± • M ) is assumed for the 0 y/y log( 0.83 0.62 2.03 0.97 1.82 0.78 0.74 0.56 0.51 0.66 0.33 0.39 0.64 0.77 1.03 0.68 0.33 0.37 0.30 0.52 0.44 0.45 0.54 0.48 0.72 0.52 0.53 0.37 1.14 0.88 0.22 0.37 0.55 0.37 0.52 0.52 0.60 0.81 0.23 0.36 0.21 0.37 0.20 0.39 0.37 0.37 0.14 0.39 0.24 0.41 0.21 0.40 0.14 0.39 0.44 0.60 0.18 0.41 0.23 0.41 β ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 46 69 51 72 33 92 76 19 82 05 ...... 46 61 09 90 71 32 32 06 01 24 32 15 12 27 08 03 27 19 14 05 ) + ...... 1 3 3 0 2 1 2 3 1 0 0 − − − − − − − − − − x/x log( 0.91 1.79 1.65 1.84 0 1.79 0 1.97 0 1.98 0 0.70 0 0.76 0.41 0.28 0.61 0 1.23 0 0.57 0.84 0.34 2.48 1.99 0 0.57 0 0.47 0 0.68 0 0.70 0 0.81 0 0.65 0 0.56 0 0.40 0 0.56 0 0.40 0 0.63 0 0.51 0 α ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± + γ ) = ⊙ M 1.92 2.07 0.75 3.06 0.51 3.07 0.28 4.09 0.21 4.28 0.32 4.99 2.69 4.95 4.23 0.07 0.29 1.59 0.15 2.74 0.16 2.19 0.10 3.29 0.08 3.59 0.25 3.15 0.27 3.85 0.15 2.08 0.54 4.97 0.36 4.95 0.25 0.72 0.10 4.03 0.13 3.93 0.19 3.88 0.20 4.02 0.09 3.83 0.07 4.68 0.09 4.81 0.11 4.37 0.30 0.41 0.17 4.42 0.13 4.74 / ± • ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± M asurement errors for all the variables into account. 9% 11.92 2% 7.73 1% 6.74 1% 8.08 1% 7.93 1% 7.90 1% 5.77 4% 8.74 1% 7.29 1% 7.33 1% 8.22 1% 8.21 1% 8.45 1% 7.53 1% 7.54 1% 7.83 1% 7.90 2% 8.16 1% 8.27 1% 8.34 1% 8.33 1% 8.27 1% 8.03 1% 8.02 1% 8.02 1% 8.13 1% 8.11 1% 8.04 is defined as the root-mean square deviation in log( ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ǫ rent linear combinations < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < NρP γ α β ǫ ǫ ) a correlation of the form log( x,y Sample comparison 30 0.63 comparison 30 0.49 0 comparison 30 0.58 0 comparison 30 0.20 28% 5.18 comparison 30 0.66 comparison 30 0.68 comparison 30 0.64 comparison 30 0.68 A+B 90 0.59 A+B 57 0.70 B 19 0.81 B 28 0.83 A+B 90 0.57 B 28 0.53B 0 28 0.62 B 19 0.80 B 19 0.11 66% 8.62 comparison 30 0.63 comparison 30 0.64 B 28 0.83 B 19 0.81 B 19 0.79 B 28 0.84 A+B 57 0.70 A+B 90 0.70 A+B 90 0.71 A+B 57 0.70 A+B 57 0.33 1 A+B 57 0.68 A+B 90 0.70 gal gal gal gal gal , , , bulge bulge bulge bulge ⋆, i, bulge e e e , , , i, r r e e r e L M M r r r L — For the variable ( gal gal e e e e e e x y bulge σ σ σ σ σ σ ⋆, i, bulge measurement errors. For sample B, the total scatter takes me A+B and the comparison sample, the total scatter Notes. i, L M M L Fitting parameters and correlation coefficients for the diffe Table 6. 32 A. Beifiori et al.

This paper has been typeset from a TEX/ LATEX file prepared by the author.